CRD 2008-07 Part II - European Aviation Safety Agency - Europa

European Aviation Safety Agency 24 Nov 2010
COMMENT RESPONSE DOCUMENT (CRD) PART II
TO NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT (NPA) 2008-07
for a Commission Regulation amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003,
laying down Implementing Rules for the airworthiness and environmental
certification of aircraft and related products, parts and appliances, as well as for the
certification of design and production organisations
“ELA process” and “standard changes and repairs”
and
for introducing an Executive Director Decision on Certification Specifications and
Acceptable Means of Compliance for Light Sport Aeroplanes (« CS-LSA »)
R.F010-02 © European Aviation Safety Agency, 2010. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Page 1 of 446

I. General
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Explanatory Note
1. The purpose of the Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2008-07, dated 17 April 2008,
was to:
amend Commission Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003 1 . As the amendments only affect
the Annex (Part-21) of this Regulation, all references hereafter will be to Part-21;
introduce Certification Specifications and Acceptable Means of Compliance for Light
Sport Aeroplanes (« CS-LSA »).
2. The scope of this rulemaking activity is outlined in ToR MDM.032 and is described in
more detail in the NPA.
II. Consultation
3. NPA 2008-07 was published on the website (http://www.easa.europa.eu) on 18 April
2008.
By the closing date of 18 July 2008, the European Aviation Safety Agency (‘the Agency’)
had received 843 comments from 79 National Aviation Authorities, professional
organisations and private companies.
III. CRD structured into Part I and Part II
4. Due to the complexity of the issue proposed in NPA 2008-07, the number of comments
received to this proposal and the review group discussions, it was decided to create a
Comment Response Document (CRD) in two parts. A CRD 2008-07 Part I was published
on 15/07/2010 that provides an explanatory note, a comprehensive summary of the
discussions, the conclusions, the resulting text proposal for the changes to Part-21 and
the way forward.
5. This document (CRD 2008-07 Part II) contains all the comments, responses and the
resulting text of the proposed new Certification Specifications (« CS-LSA ») in Annex I.
6. The new CS-LSA is based on a number of ASTM standards at a specified revision as
documented in Subpart A of CS-LSA. The structure of the ASTM standard F2245 at
revision 09 is used as the basis for this CS-LSA, including the numbering system.
7. The differences between the initial issue of CS-LSA and the current ASTM standard can
be summarised as follow:
The scope is extended to aeroplanes with retractable landing gear and variable pitch
propeller.
The scope is on the other hand restricted, and does not provide technical standards for
banner towing or night VFR. These issues will be reviewed as part of rulemaking task
VLA.008 in order to implement consistent requirements for CS-LSA and CS-VLA. Before
that amendment becomes effective, special conditions will be applied.
The technical standard differences between the ASTM standard and CS-LSA requirements
are provided in a table specifying modified, deleted or new technical requirements.
Note: Differences between the ASTM F2245 revision 09 and CS-LSA identified with grey
shading are expected to be incorporated in the next revision of this ASTM standard.
1 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003 of 24 September 2003 laying down implementing rules for
the airworthiness and environmental certification of aircraft and related products, parts and appliances,
as well as for the certification of design and production organisations (OJ L 243, 27.9.2003, p. 6) as last
amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1194/2009 of 30 November 2009 (OJ L 321, 8.12.2009,
p. 5).
Page 2 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
When this revision next revision of ASTM F2245 is published before the initial issue of
CS-LSA, it is the Agency’s intention to remove the differences and refer directly to the
new ASTM F2245 revision.
8. The initial issue of CS-LSA only contains AMC for fatigue and material properties. Other
appropriate AMC is available in the AMC’s of CS-VLA and CS-22, but this is currently not
included because or referred to because that AMC is structured inconsistent with the
ASTM standard numbering. At the same time AMC is also being developed by ASTM.
IV. Publication of the CRD Part II
9. All comments received have been acknowledged and incorporated into this Comment
Response Document (CRD) with the responses of the Agency.
10. In responding to comments, a standard terminology has been applied to attest the
Agency’s acceptance of the comment. This terminology is as follows:
Accepted – The comment is agreed by the Agency and any proposed amendment
is wholly transferred to the revised text.
Partially accepted – Either the comment is only agreed in part by the Agency, or
the comment is agreed by the Agency but any proposed amendment is partially
transferred to the revised text.
Noted – The comment is acknowledged by the Agency but no change to the
existing text is considered necessary.
Not accepted – The comment or proposed amendment is not shared by the
Agency.
11. The Executive Director Decision introducing the proposed new Certification Specifications
(CS-LSA) will be issued at least two months after the publication of this CRD to allow for
any possible reactions of stakeholders regarding possible misunderstandings of the
comments received and answers provided.
12. Reactions to CRD 2008-07 Part II should be received by the Agency not later than
25 January 2011 and should be submitted using the Comment-Response Tool at
http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt.
Page 3 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
V. CRD table of comments, responses and resulting text
(General Comments) -
comment 20 comment by: Member State - Luxembourg
response Noted
No particular observations on the NPA.
Noted
comment 21 comment by: FFVV
response Noted
On behalf of FFVV (French Gliding Union)
FFVV appreciates the improvement for sport and light aviation, as ELA1 may
aleviate requirements for certification and maintenance.
However, for maintenance and airworthiness ther is still some improvements
espected.
The Agency has issued an Opinion proposing a Part-M with alleviations for
general aviation.
comment 29 comment by: FAA
response Noted
It appears EASA plans on re-issuing an ELA TC for any airplane that
incorporates a revision to one of the ASTM standards into the design after
initial certification. This could create a burden for EASA & the ELA
manufacturers because of the pace of revision of the ASTM standards. This
could also impact ELA safety. ASTM standards were used for the FAA LSA
program because there are more easily modified and revised than FAA
regulations & policy. The FAA allows an LSA manufacturer to incorporate new
ASTM standards into a design by simply including them in a revised statement
of compliance to the consensus standards. This process allows the latest
safety enhancements in new standards to be easily incorporated into designs.
EASA should consider changing the way they track applicable standards on an
ELA, rather than treating them in the same manner as current Part 23
Amendment levels that are documented in a product's certification basis. Reissuing
a new TC and the fees associated with doing so will cause some
manufacturers to decide not to update a design to the latest standards.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 10 for general intentions for harmonisation
with the US.
The EASA do not plan to re-issue the TC systematically. The TC holder can
elect to comply with the latest ASTM standards and we can then modify the TC
basis for the aircraft that would come out the production line after a certain
date.
comment 40 comment by: John Tempest
I strongly support the introduction of the ELA concept and the introduction of
QEs.
Page 4 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
The advantages of the proximity of a specialist QE to the aircraft they
oversee will be significant and is an important part of the ELA concept as
presented in this NPA, where the requirements for DOA approval are relaxed.
I believe that it is vital that simplified regulation for continuing airworthiness
follows on from the simplification of airworthiness regulation to ensure that the
aircraft maintenance regime is compatible. In particular, that QEs are given
delegated functions to oversee both the airworthiness and continuing
airworthiness of ELAs, together with the maintenance and airworthiness review
personnel who will oversee the aircraft, where the owner chooses to follow the
QE route.
There should be a strong link between the airworthiness and the continuing
airworthiness of these aircraft, and this can be done effectively by providing
the QE's with the authority to oversee both activities. The QEs should adopt
the role of the CAMO for ELA aircraft and should be able to approve
maintenance and airworthiness review staff to maintain and review the
continuing airworthiness of these machines. In this way, the QEs will be able to
control the entire process, so avoiding any gaps between the QE regime and
the Part 21/Part M regime.
Further, the financial viability of the QEs will be better assured if they are able
to levy both continued airworthiness fees as well as airworthiness fees.
Continuing airworthiness fees are a major income stream of current successful
QEs, together with airworthiness fees and membership fees. If able to levy
both airworthiness and continued airworthiness fees, and provided that the
approval fees levied on the QEs by EASA and NAAs are not onerous, then the
financial viability of the QEs should be assured, in that staff costs and
insurance costs will be able to be covered.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 6.
comment 54 comment by: Michael GREINER
Das Dokument ist leider so schlecht strukturiert, daß es das Lesen erschwert.
Beispielsweise ist es in Abschnitt A.IV nicht möglich zu erschließen, ..
was noch zu „Overview of the proposals included in this NPA“ gehört.
Ist "ELA 1:” und “ELA 2:” untergeordnet? - oder warum wird die
Information eine Seite später wieder wiederholt? Andererseits sind die
Überschriften identisch formatiert wie „Overview [..]“
warum “ Creation of a system of standard modifications and standard
repairs” kursiv geschrieben ist
warum der Kern des neuen Systems, nämlich die Definition der unter
ELA1 und ELA2 fallenden Luftfahrzeuge unter „Further considerations on
the European Light Aircraft Process“ beschrieben wird.
It is a pity, this document is structured so badly, that it makes understanding
difficult. For example, in section A.IV it is not possible to determine, ..
how much of the following text is covered by the caption „Overview of
the proposals included in this NPA“. Are the captions “ELA 1:” and “ELA
2:” subordinate to “Overview [..]“, or not? They are formatted identical
to „Overview [..]“ But why are the definitions repeated one page later?
why “Creation of a system of standard modifications and standard
repairs” is written in italics
Page 5 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
why the core of the new system, i.e. the definition of ELA1 and ELA2
comes under „Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft
Process“
It is agreed that the document is not easy to read. However the subject of this
NPA is quite complex and is not easy to explain in a concise manner. For
example, the concept of qualified entities is quite new and the complete policy
on it is not yet available.
comment 68 comment by: Michael GREINER
0 Vorwort
1 Zusammenfassung
2 Ziele des NPA
3 Hintergrund
4 Bewertung der im NPA vorgeschlagenen Maßnahmen
4.1 Qualified Entities
4.2 Competent Authority
4.3 ELA who does what
4.4 Design and Production Approvals
4.5 Limiting the number of parts that need a Form 1
4.6 Further Considerations on the introduction of standard changes
and Standard repairs
4.7 Fees and Charges
5 Impact Assessment
5.1 Safety
5.2 Economic
6 Vorschläge für wirkliche Erleichterungen
Anhang: English translation
0. Vorwort
Der Autor dieses Kommentars arbeitet als Ingenieur seit 8 Jahren bei einem
traditionsreichen Hersteller von Segelflugzeugen. In diesem Betrieb gibt es
zwei, in Übergangsphasen drei, Ingenieure, die sich um alle Belange während
der Lebenszeit aller Muster kümmern.
Der Kommentar betrifft daher auch nur den Bereich der Segelflugzeuge und
Motorsegler. Der Kommentar beschäftigt sich mit der Erleichterung des
„regulative burden“, nicht mit der Einführung der Klasse des LSA.
1. Zusammenfassung
Das NPA 2008-07 spricht das Problem eines zu großen „regulative burdens“ im
Luftsport an. Ich halte die Lösungen, die das NPA anbietet, jedoch für
vollkommen unzureichend, teilweise nicht einmal zielführend. Durch die
Vorschläge dieses NPA wird sich an dem „regulatory burden“ im wesentlichen
nichts ändern, nur der Namen der beteiligten Institutionen.
Die Tabelle in Attachment II entspricht auch dem heutigen Zustand mit
ADOAP
Qualified Entities und Competent Authorities sind neue Institutionen,
ihre Existenz ändert den formalen Ablauf nicht.
Im Bereich Design and Production Approvals werden leichte
Vereinfachungen in Aussicht gestellt, die aber die Situation nicht
wesentlich verbessern werden (wie es z.B. ein simplified DOA tun
würde)
Page 6 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Es schießt über das Ziel hinaus, wenn grundsätzlich alle Teile für das
eigene Segelflugzeug nachgebaut werden dürfen (Limiting the number
of parts that need a Form 1). Dies wird zwar in der Realität nicht häufig
vorkommen, da die Zeichnungen in der Regel nicht verfügbar sind, aber
der Entwickler muß einen Einfluß nehmen können.
Wegen des Aufwandes an Arbeitszeit, an Gebühren und wegen der Tatsache,
daß man den Prozeß über Monate nicht abschließen kann, werden auch mit
dieser NPA kleine Verbesserungen oder Korrekturen einfach nicht durchgeführt
werden.
Zur Lösung ist notwendig, dem Flugzeug-Halter, dem LTB und dem Hersteller
wieder in verschiedenem Maße eigene Verantwortung zuzugestehen, um den
bürokratischen Formalismius zu reduzieren. Dazu wäre es notwendig einen
vereinfachten Entwicklungsbetrieb einzuführen, oder einen Betrieb nach ADOAP
mit gewissen Privilegien auszustatten. Dies würde eine flexiblere Handhabung
von kleinen Änderungen oder Reparaturen erlauben und die Anzahl hin- und
hergeschickter Formulare reduzieren.
2. Ziele des NPA No 2008-07
MDM.032 hat zwei Aufgaben. Diese werden auf Seite 4 definiert:
Die erste Aufgabe, wird wie folgt beschrieben:
“In the past years there has been a decrease in the activity of “classical”
leisure aviation and the development of the microlight movement in Europe.
Feedback from industry and operators has suggested that the regulatory
framework applied to recreational aircraft has become progressively too heavy
for the nature of the activities involved and places too high a regulatory burden
on designers and manufacturers of these types. The Agency created a
rulemaking task MDM.032 in order to address these concerns.”
Die zweite Aufgabe ist es, die Kategorie LSA zu diskutieren. Dieser Kommentar
beschäftigt sich nur mit der ersten Aufgabe.
3 Hintergrund
Um zu bewerten, ob diese NPA ihr erstes Ziel erreicht, muß die Frage gestellt
werden: Was genau ist der „regulative burden“?
Zuerst muß man sich klarmachen, wie fundamental die Einführung des EASA-
Systems das Konzept des Segelflug-Sports umgestellt hat.
Es geht nicht um die allgemeine Situation, sondern tatsächlich um Zulassung,
Reparaturen und Änderungen, und um das was in diesen Bereichen den
Beteiligten an Kompetenz und Verantwortlichkeit zugestanden ist – also darum
worum es in dieser NPA geht.
Wo kommt die Segelfliegerei her? In jedem europäischen Land herrschten vor
der EASA eigene Regeln. Aber gemeinsam ist, daß z.B. vor 40 Jahren der
Amateurbau noch genauso üblich war wie die industrielle Herstellung. Die
Kompetenz, z.B. einen Schaden zu reparieren, wurde innerhalb der
Segelfluggemeinde vermittelt. Luftämter dienten als Zulassungsbehörde für
Muster, überwachten das Geschehen eher gesamtheitlich, oder gaben diese
Aufgabe sogar an Luftsportverbände ab. Natürlich hat sich auch an diesen
Verhältnissen über die Jahre einiges geändert, aber dem Segelflugpiloten
wurde immer ein gewisser technischer Hintergrund vermittelt, und sowohl
Pilot, als auch Werkstattpersonal, als auch den Entwicklern wurde in
verschiedenem Maße Kompetenz zugetraut und Verantwortung übertragen.
Das EASA-System orientiert sich an der kommerziellen Luftfahrt. Hier wird eine
gewaltige Anzahl passiver Passagiere in hochkomplexen Luftfahrzeugen gegen
Entgelt transportiert. Auch führen diese Flüge besonders bei An- und Abflug
Page 7 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
regelmäßig über dichtest bebautes Gebiet und die verwendeten Luftfahrzeuge
haben ein gewaltiges Zerstörungspotential. Passagiere und Unbeteiligte
erwarten einen größtmöglichen Schutz vor Fehlkonstruktionen und
Fahrlässigkeit. Dieses System wird nun auf den Luftsport angewendet.
Es ist nun verboten,
daß Halter eines Segelflugzeugs ein Zubehör einbaut
daß ein LTB eine Reparatur durchführt
daß ein Hersteller (de facto, weil ADOAP) eine Zeichnung ändert
wenn nicht vorher eine Genehmigung der EASA vorliegt. Der formale Aufwand
und die EASA-Gebühren sind dabei so groß, wie für einen Major Change. Das
ist der alltägliche „regulative burden“ im Zulassungsbereich von
Segellugzeugen.
Um anhand von drei Beispielen ins Detail zu gehen:
a) Für die genannten Fälle ist die Kaskade zu befolgen:
Halter / LTB wendet sich an Hersteller
Hersteller setzt Dokumente für einen Minor Change auf und sendet sie
an die EASA
EASA intern sind mehr als eine Abteilungen zu durchlaufen oder es geht
weiter an externe Stellen (z.B. LBA)
Vom LBA wieder an die EASA
Von EASA an Hersteller
Hersteller setzt Minor Change in etwas um, was die Informationen
enthält, die der Halter /LTB benötigt (Technische Mitteilung) und
veröffentlicht dieses.
Dabei geht es u.U. mehrfach innerhalb des Systems hin und her, da die
Abteilungen, die die Aufgaben verteilen, naturgemäß keinen tiefen Einblick in
die Sache haben.
b) Vor der Einführung der EASA hat man bei Anfragen aus dem
außereuropäischen Ausland (z.B. Australien, USA), die eigenen Maßstäbe
anwenden können. Heute fragt man zuerst, nach den in dem betreffenden
Land geltenden Regeln, da sie unbürokratischer sind (z.B. Field Approval),
bevor man eine Lösung entwickelt.
c) Die Aufgabe, jede Reparatur zuzulassen, ist bei der bestehenden Anzahl an
Segelflugzeugen nicht zu bewältigen. Daher mußten für täglich auftretenden
Fälle allgemeingültige Dokumente zugelassen werden, die allgemein
Reparaturen oder den Einbau von Zubehör regeln und erlauben. Die
Möglichkeiten des EASA-Systems werden dazu verwenden, den Zustand vor
der EASA wieder herzustellen. Während allerdings früher der Ausführende sich
seiner Verantwortung bewußt sein mußte, ist die Verantwortlichkeit heute
diffus und verliert sich in genannten Dokumenten, die nur Allgemeines
deklarieren können. (Ähnlicher formalistischer Humbug spielt sich bei den
Instandhaltungsprogrammen ab).
Die Erkenntnis, daß ein zu schwerer „regulative burden“ existiert kann also nur
unterstützt werden. Liefert das NPA 2008-07 eine Lösung?
4 Bewertung der im NPA vorgeschlagenen Maßnahmen
4.1 Qualified Entities
“The Agency will use such QE in the certification process when it will be found
to improve the overall efficiency of the process and because it could increase
the proximity with applicants [..]” (Seite 8)
Warum es die Gesamteffizienz verbessern sollte, wenn eine weitere Instanz
eingeschaltet wird, ist nicht dargestellt. Es ist auch kein Grund erkennbar, daß
der „regulatory burden“ durch die QE gemindert werden könnte. Im Gegenteil,
wenn die Zulassung durch die EASA betreut wird, wird das Technical Visa durch
Page 8 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
eine Person erarbeitet und die Zulassungsurkunde evtl. durch deren
Vorgesetzten unterschrieben. Durch eine Qualified Entity wird das notwendige
Hin- und Her von Formularen und Dokumenten vergrößert. Allein die Kosten
für die Zulassung als QE müssen erwirtschaftet werden und es gibt nur eine
Gruppe, die die EASA und Ihre privatwirtschaftlichen Anhängsel finanziert: das
sind die Kunden der EASA.
Trotz allem Bemühen, wird es Unterschiede geben in den Maßstäben, die die
verschiedenen QE anlegen – insbesondere wenn sie untereinander im
Wettbewerb um die Gunst der entwickelnden Betriebe stehen. Dies ist bereits
heute aus anderen, ähnlichen Systemen bekannt.
Eine zentrale Akkumulation von Erfahrung findet nicht mehr statt. Diese
könnte eventuell verhindern, daß sich auf Kosten der Sicherheit Fehler bei
Projekten verschiedener Firmen wiederholen. In seiner Funktion als
Zulassungsbehörde hat das Luftfahrtbundesamt in Deutschland jede Firma
diskret betreut. Es hätte aber sicher niemals wissentlich ein Projekt in einer
Form weiterlaufen lassen, wenn es aus anderen Projekten gewußt hätten, daß
so die Sicherheit gefährden wäre.
4.2 Competent Authority
Dieses Konzept scheint das Zusammenspiels zwischen der EASA und den
nationalen Behörden der Länder flexibler zu machen.
Es wird nicht klar, wie dies mit den Zielen dieses NPA zu tun hat.
4.3 ELA1 who does what
Aus der Perspektive des Entwicklers (DO) ändert sich, daß er zur Beginn einer
Entwicklung anstelle eines DOA oder ADOAP mit einem zugelassenen
„certification programme“ auskommt. Das erspart ihm vorläufig, ein ADOAP-
Handbuch zu verfassen und zuzulassen. Alles weitere bürokratische Hin- und
Her ändert sich nicht.
Entsprechend dem Attachment 2 ist dem DO nur zugeordnet:
Establishment of certification basis
Statements of Compliance
Establishment of flight conditions for permit to fly
In-service monitoring
Recommendation for issue of mandatory continuing airworthiness
information
Response to safety recommendations
Das ist bereits jetzt als ADOAP der Fall. Es ist nichts dazugekommen, was eine
Erleichterung verspricht (Privilegien).
Zusätzlich kommt neu hinzu:
Proposal for selecting QE or NAA
Auch neu gegenüber dem derzeitigen Stand ist, daß man es nicht mehr nur mit
der EASA und NAA zu tun hat, sondern nun mit
EASA
Competent Authority (CA)
NAA or Qualified Entity
Wobei im günstigsten Fall CA und NAA einfach identisch bleiben.
Dadurch ändert sich an dem „regulatory framework“ nichts, oder es wird
höchstens komplizierter durch das Mehr an Mitspielern. Dadurch, daß
getrennte funktionelle Einheiten, NAA/QE und EASA beteiligt sind, treten
Page 9 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
zusätzliche, enervierende Zeitverluste auf, ganz abgesehen von dem doppelten
Arbeitszeitaufwand, den letztlich der Kunde (DO) zu bezahlen hat. Es bleibt
zwar weiterhin bei EASA Gebühren, diese sind allerdings keine Konstante.
Zusätzlicher Zeitaufwand entsteht durch die „Notification of QE or NAA“ der
EASA. Eine Vereinfachung entsprechend der Zielvorgabe ist nicht ersichtlich.
In den Bereichen „Post TC Approvals“ und „Individual Aircraft“ ist eine
Beteiligung des DO nicht mehr vorgesehen. Es ist unklar, ob das bedeutet, daß
für den DO hier tatsächlich keine Funktion mehr vorgesehen ist (er ist ja weder
DOA, noch ADOAP), oder daß die entsprechenden Punkte „Establishment of
certification basis“, „Statements of Compliance“, „Establishment of flight
conditions for permit to fly“ nur der Einfachheit halber herausgelassen wurden.
Eine Klärung diesbezüglich wäre hilfreich.
Unabhängig davon verhält es sich nach dem Entwürfen aber weiterhin genauso
wie unter ADOAP: Änderungen darf nur das NAA oder QE klassifizieren. Kleine
Änderungen dürfen nicht ohne Mitwirkung der NAA/QE und EASA durchgeführt
werden. Wegen des Aufwandes an Arbeitszeit, an Gebühren und wegen der
Tatsache, daß man den Prozeß über Monate nicht abschließen kann, wird das
DO kleine Verbesserungen oder Korrekturen auch weiterhin einfach nicht
durchführen.
4.4 Design and Production Approvals
Im NPA steht auf Seite 9:
“ELA 1: Approval of certification programme by the Agency in lieu of DOA or
Alternative Procedures (AP) to DOA although the applicant may elect to have a
higher design approval.”
Wie soll das Muster betreut werden, wenn weder ein DOA noch ein ADOAP
vorliegt? Wird es nicht früher oder später wieder formale Gründe geben, die
wenigstens ein ADOAP notwendig machen? Eine Unselbstständigkeit in den
Händen eines QE oder NAA, wie sie auch im Attachment 2 unter „Post TC
approvals“ angedeutet wird, ist jedenfalls inakzeptabel.
“Production Organisation Approvals (POA) will be handled as at present except
that a simplified process is introduced for ELA. More specifically the
requirement for a quality system is to be replaced by a requirement for
organisational reviews.” (Seite 9)
Für das POA kann dadurch ein Vorteil entstehen. Es kommt auf die Umsetzung
an.
"Production Organisation for ELA 1 will have the privilege to maintain the
products they have manufactured and to issue the corresponding release into
service." (Seite 9)
Ein guter Ansatz. In der Vor-EASA-Zeit hätte niemand daran gezweifelt, daß
ein Hersteller eines nicht-komplexen Luftfahrzeuges, wie etwa eines
Segelflugzeugs, nicht auch in der Lage ist, sein Produkt zu warten.
Zu den Ausführungen zum „Combined DOA/POA“ fällt auf: Das NPA stellt eine
günstige Lösung auf Kosten Dritter in Aussicht, die dazu noch nicht gefragt
wurden. Gleichzeitig wird ein entsprechender Gebührenverzicht von eigener
Seite a priori ausgeschlossen.
Trotzdem könnte das Combined DOA/POA erstrebenswert und sinnvoll sein.
Solange es aber keine belastbaren Vereinbarungen mit den nationalen
Behörden gibt, wäre es voreilig, von einer Erleichterung des „regulatory
burden“ zu sprechen.
Page 10 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
4.5 Limiting the number of parts that need a Form 1
Es gibt zwei Gründe, über die Notwendigkeit eines Form 1 nachzudenken:
1. Manche Prüfer fühlen sich so unter Druck, daß sie ein Form 1 für
Standardteile wie Griffschalen, Zündkerzen oder Schrauben verlangen.
Das ist Unsinn und verteuert Kleinteile unnötig.
2. Das „Form 1“ ist der Beleg, daß es sich um ein Originalteil handelt.
Aufgrund der sehr direkten Vertriebsstrukturen bei Segelflugzeugteilen
(Bestellung direkt beim Hersteller, oder seinem Vertreter im Ausland)
scheint die Gefahr, daß jemandem unwissentlich an ein gefälschtes Teil
gerät, recht klein.
Aber das NPA ließt sich aber so, als bräuchte ein Teil, für das kein Form 1 mehr
nötig ist, auch kein Originalteil mehr zu sein. Das hieße, das Kind mit dem
Bade auszuschütten.
Ist dieses nur für Flugzeuge angedacht, die tatsächlich mit dem ELA1/2 Prozeß
entwickelt wurden? Oder sollte dies für alle Flugzeuge gelten, die in die
Definition von ELA1/2 passen?
Im letzteren Fall würde das bedeuten, daß jedes Teil jedes Segelflugzeugs
(ELA1!) zum Nachbau freigegeben wäre, sofern man noch einen Laminierplan
von der letzten Reparatur besitzt. Das wäre die falsche Botschaft! Unter den
Haltern von Segelflugzeugen herrscht bisher ein vernünftiger Respekt vor dem
Know-How das in der Fertigung steckt und nicht immer von außen zu erkennen
ist.
Man denke dabei zum Beispiel ans Flattern. Es ist viel Aufwand nötig, um
Segelflugzeuge mit ihren großen Streckungen und hohen VDF gegen Flattern zu
schützen. Eine schlecht gebaute Klappe, die zwar den Angaben des
Wartungshandbuchs entspricht (Rücklastigkeit und Masse) aber nicht
erkennbare Defizite hat, wie eine falsche Verteilung des Massenballasts über
der Spannweite, kann zu katastrophalen Folgen führen.
Deswegen halte ich Teile der Primärstruktur, der Sekundärstruktur
(Steuerflächen!), der Steuerung, kritische Teile des Motors bei
eigenstartfähigen Motorseglern und mindestens des Propellers und
Motorträgers bei nicht eigenstartfähigen Segelflugzeugen für absolut tabu für
den Nachbau außerhalb des Herstellerbetriebs – sofern es nicht mit diesem
abgesprochen ist.
Es ist möglich, daß dies anders eingeschätzt wird, bei anderen
Flugzeugkategorien oder vielleicht auch nur bei bestimmten Typen, die auf eine
Low-Tech Bauweise ausgelegt sind. Aber dann ist es entweder schlecht,
Flugzeuge verschiedener Entwurfsphilosophien und Bauvorschriften über einen
Kamm zu scheren. Oder es muß für den DO noch möglich sein, den Nachbau
von Teilen in bestimmten Bereichen zu erlauben oder zu verbieten, zum
Beispiel über eine Technische Mitteilung oder einen Eintrag im
Wartungshandbuch.
In den Fällen, in denen Flugzeuge für den Amateurbau zugelassen sind (einige
alte Flugzeuge in Holz und Gemischtbauweise), wäre es dagegen abwegig ein
Form 1 von jemandem zu verlangen, der sich ein Teil nachbaut.
4.6 Further Considerations on the introduction of standard changes
and Standard repairs
Das ist bereits passiert, weil die Hersteller zum Handeln gezwungen waren. Die
Frage ist, ob es sinnvoll ist, zu versuchen, dem Werker durch solche
Dokumente „die Hand zu führen“. Alle Besonderheiten können ohnehin nicht
Page 11 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
erschlagen werden. Oder ob es nicht sinnvoller ist, die fachliche
Fortbildungsarbeit, die in den Luftsportverbänden geleistet wird und die
geprüfte Kompetenz der zertifizierten Prüfer entsprechend zu würdigen. Wenn
darüber hinaus hilfreiche Rundbriefe mit fachlicher Information veröffentlicht
werden, würde das die Reputation der EASA sicherlich gut tun.
4.7 Fees and Charges
Die EASA sollte vielleicht nicht nur ihre jährlichen Ausgaben auf die Firmen und
Personen verteilen, die Musterzulassungen anstreben oder besitzen, sondern
auch reflektieren, was dafür geboten wird. Beispielweise stellt sich die Frage,
was der EASA an effektiver Arbeit durch eine existierende Musterzulassung
eines Segelflugzeuges anfällt, da jede Änderung ohnehin extra bezahlt wird.
Kleine Firmen, die Musterzulassungen aufrechterhalten, ohne selbst
Neuflugzeuge zu bauen, werden hier zu einer Abgabe gezwungen, ohne
regelmäßige Einkünfte in dem Bereich. Für die Unterschrift auf den „Flight
Conditions“ fallen um die 675€ an, obwohl alle Sachfragen, bereits mit anderen
Stellen der Behörde geklärt sind. Es ist die Frage, warum eine dritte Abteilung
noch ins Spiel kommen muß. Mit den Kosten für die Erstellung dieses Stück
Papiers könnte man genausogut zwei Arbeitstage eines Ingenieurs in der
eigenen Firma bezahlen. Dies weicht etwas von der NPA ab, soll aber nur auf
das breite Spektrum der Probleme hinweisen und daran erinnern, daß die im
NPA genannten Beträge keineswegs die einzigen sind, die im Zusammenhang
mit einem Muster und seiner Entwicklung auftreten.
5 Impact Assessment
5.1 Safety
Die Analyse bezüglich der Sicherheits-Situation in der Allgemeinen Luftfahrt
gibt Hoffnung, daß die EASA den Realitäten in Zukunft vielleicht wirklich
Rechnung trägt.
Den Optimismus bezüglich Option 2 kann ich aber keineswegs teilen.
Wie bereits beschrieben, ist kaum eine Erleichterungen des „regulative burden“
erkennbar. Ob mit oder ohne ELA1 bleibt der bürokratische und finanzielle
Aufwand unverändert, eine Verbesserung am Muster zuzulassen – sei sie nun
klein oder groß. Man läßt es einfach bleiben.
Angeblich weicht ELA1 ab von „well proven certification principles and may
have a negative impact on safety, if [..]“ (Seite 14). In der vorangestellten
Erklärung heißt es jedoch: “[..] their review tends to show that the major
fatalities risks for General Aviation are loss of control and controlled flight into
terrain and that the design related failure rate appears to be very low in all
cases“ (dito).
Zum einen wurden bisher wohl weniger als 1 Prozent der Flugzeuge der
Allgemeinen Luftfahrt unter dem EASA System zugelassen, welches ja auch
erst seit fünf Jahren existiert. Daher ist es gewagt, von einem „well proven
certification principles“ zu sprechen, zumindest für die Belange des Segelflugs.
Zweitens ist das Vor-EASA-System der Zulassung von Segelflugzeugen von viel
weitreichenderen Befugnissen für die Segelflugzeughersteller (ob DOA oder
nicht) gekennzeichnet gewesen. Und in diesem liberaleren und wesentlich
weniger bürokratisch durchprozessierten System (man denke an Attachment
II) ist keineswegs von einem „impact on safety“ zu spüren gewesen. (wie
bereits zitiert: „[..] design related failure rate appears to be very low in all
cases“)
5.2 Economic
Auch hier kann ich den Optimismus nicht teilen:
ein DOA war auch bisher nicht für ein Flugzeug der ELA1 Definition nötig. Ein
Page 12 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
ADOAP wird aber trotzdem auch weiterhin notwendig sein, um das Muster zu
betreuen, Kundenwünschen entgegenzukommen und Verbesserungen
einfließen zu lassen.
Leider wird ohne ein simplified DOA oder ein ADOAP mit Privilegien kein
Unterschied zur jetzigen Situation auftreten. Kosten für EASA-Gebühren und
Handling des formalen Hin- und Her bleiben identisch.
EASA Gebühren orientieren sich nicht an der tatsächlichen geleisteten Arbeit,
sondern daran, daß sich die EASA selbst tragen muß. Die resultierende Höhe
der Gebühren ist ein indirekter Hinweis darauf, daß man beim Aufstellen der
Arbeitsprinzipien („Who does what“) der EASA nicht auf die Kosten Rücksicht
genommen hat, sondern aus dem Nichts ein theoretisch makelloses System
aus der Taufe heben wollte. Weitere funktionelle Einheiten (QE) ins Leben zu
rufen, die sich selbst finanzieren müssen, kann nicht im Interesse der
Allgemeinen Luftfahrt sein.
6 Vorschläge für wirkliche Erleichterungen
Um wieder eine praktikable Arbeitsumgebung zu schaffen, ist es unabdingbar
dem DO wieder die Möglichkeit zu geben, kleine Änderungen, mit geringem
finanziellem, formalem Aufwand und in kurzer Zeit durchzuführen.
1. Dazu würde es gehören, dem DO die „Classification of Changes” und
„Classification of repairs” zu erlauben
2. Eine der folgenden Möglichkeit um den Minor Change/Repair auch zügig
umsetzen zu können:
ein vereinfachter DOA oder ein ADOAP mit Privilegien (Selbstständiges
Bearbeiten des Minor Change)
Selbstständiges Bearbeiten des Minor Change mit dem vorläufigen
Recht, diesen umzusetzen, und einer en bloc Zulassung der über einen
Zeitraum (z.B. 6 Monate) gesammelten Minor Changes. (Dies
gewährleistet noch eine gewisse Kontrolle und hat in einer solchen Form
bereits einmal funktioniert.)
eine Kategorie unterhalb des Minor Change, für den Privilegien erlaubt
werden können
Um zu vermeiden, daß sich die EASA zu weit aus Ihrer Aufsichtspflicht
gedrängt wird, wäre je nach der gewählten Option denkbar:
1. einen zugewiesenen EASA-Mitarbeiter formlos von den Vorgängen in
Kenntnis zu setzen.
2. Erleichterungen an bestimmte Bedingungen zu knüpfen:
Unauffällige Unfallstatistik
Nachweisbare Erfahrung des DO
Erfahrung der EASA über das Verhalten des DO in Zulassungsdingen
Dabei wäre ein gewisser „Bewährungszeitraum“ für bestehende und neue
Betriebe nichts ehrenrührendes.
Doppelte Formalien, wie das „Approval of flight conditions“ sollten entfallen.
Mit diesem Schritt, wird dem „Technical visa for Approval of flight conditions
for permit to fly“ nichts hinzugefügt. Es ist ein teurer und rein bürokratischer
Akt. Es führt keine weitere Kontrollfunktion aus und erhöht die Sicherheit in
keiner Hinsicht.
English Translation
0 Preface
1 Summary
2 Aims of this NPA
3 Background
Page 13 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
4 Evaluation of the Measures proposed in this NPA
4.1 Qualified Entities
4.2 Competent Authority
4.3 ELA who does what
4.4 Design and Production Approvals
4.5 Limiting the number of parts that need a Form 1
4.6 Further Considerations on the introduction of standard changes
and Standard repairs
4.7 Fees and Charges
5 Impact Assessment
5.1 Safety
5.2 Economic
6 Requirements for a real Relief of the “regulatory burden”
0 Preface
The author of this comment has been working for eight years as an engineer
with an established manufacturer of sailplanes. In this company there are two,
in transition periods three, engineers, who have to take care for all concerns of
the types during their lifetime.
The comment only applies to the area of sailplanes and powered sailplanes.
The comment deals with the “regulative burden”, not with the introduction of
the LSA class.
1 Summary
The NPA 2008-07 addresses the problem of a too heavy regulative burden in
the area of initial airworthiness of airsport. But I consider the proposed
measures insufficient, partially not even goal-oriented. The measures of this
NPA will not relieve the regulative burden, but only change the name of the
concerned institutions.
The table of the Attachment II basicly describes what is already reality
with ADOAP
Qualified Entities and Competent Authorities are new institutions, but
their existence does not effect the regulative burden or bureaucratic
process.
In the area of Desing and Production Approvals, small improvements
are envisaged. But these will not improve the situation considerably
(like for example a simplified DOA would do)
It overshoots, when principally all parts for a sailplane may be produced
by the owner (Limiting the number of parts that need a Form 1). This
would not happen very often in reality, because the necessary drawings
are usually not available, but there must be a possibility for the
designer to decide what is permissible and what is not.
Due to the expense of worktime and EASA fees, and due to the fact, that
processes cannot be closed for months, minor improvements and corrections
will not be put into practice – neither now, nor with this NPA.
For reaching the aim, it is necessary to grant more responsibility in different
degree to the airplane-operator, to the technical aviation repair station, and to
the designer again – in order to reduce the bureaucratic workload. For this it
also would be reasonable to introduce a simplified DOA or an ADOAP with
certain privileges. This would allow a more flexible handling of Minor Changes
and repairs and reduce the number of forms to be send back and forth.
2 Aims of this NPA
MDM.032 has two aims. These are defined on page 4:
The first aim is described as follows:
Page 14 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
“In the past years there has been a decrease in the activity of “classical”
leisure aviation and the development of the microlight movement in Europe.
Feedback from industry and operators has suggested that the regulatory
framework applied to recreational aircraft has become progressively too heavy
for the nature of the activities involved and places too high a regulatory burden
on designers and manufacturers of these types. The Agency created a
rulemaking task MDM.032 in order to address these concerns.”
The second aim is to discuss the introduction of the LSA category. This
comment only handles the first aim.
3 Background
In order to evaluate, whether this NPA achieves its first aim, the questions
must be answered: What exactly is the “regulative burden?
First one has to realize how fundamentally the introduction of the EASA-
System has changed the concept of the sport of soaring.
We are not talking about the general situation, but in fact about initial
airworthiness, repairs and modifications, and how much responsibility and
competence is admitted to be owned by the involved – thus, what this NPA is
about.
Where does soaring come? There have been different rules in every European
country before EASA. But it is common, that 40 years ago, amateur building of
gliders was as common as industrial production. The competence, e.g. to
repair a damage was taught within the soaring community. Aviation authorities
served as certification offices and cultivated a more collective overview, if they
not even handed this task over to national gliding federations. Naturally, things
changed over the years, but glider pilots have always been imparted a
technical background. Pilots as well as workshop staff, as well as designers
were admitted competence and granted responsibility, in different degrees.
The EASA-system is geared to the commercial aviation. Here, a enormous
number of passive passengers pays for being transported in highly complex
aircraft. These flights regularly lead over densely populated areas, especially
during approach and after take-off, while the heavy aircraft have a large
destructive potential. Passengers and third parties expect a large as possible
protection against faulty designs and carelessness. This system is no adopted
to airsport.
It is now prohibited,
that the operator of a sailplane installs additional equipment
that a certified aviation repair station repairs a damage
that a manufacturer (de facto, because ADOAP) changes a drawing
if this had not been certified by EASA. The formal effort and the EASA-fees are
as large as for a Major Change. This is the daily „regulative burden“ in the
certification area of sailplanes and powered sailplanes.
Three examples to give more details:
a) For the above mentioned cases, the following cascade must be followed:
Operator / Repair station contacts Manufacturer
Manufacturer draws documents for a Minor Change and sends them to
EASA
Internally in EASA more than one department has to be passed, or it is
proceeded to an external institution (e.g. LBA)
From LBA back to EASA
From EASA back to Manufacturer
Manufacturer draws a document that contains the information, which
Page 15 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
are necessary for operator or repair station and publishes it.
Sometimes documents go forward and backward, because the departments,
which distribute the tasks, naturally do not know very well about technical
backgrounds.
b) Prior to the introduction of the EASA System, one has simply used the own
standards, when answering requests from non-European countries (e.g.
Australia, USA). Nowadays one asks for the rules first, which can be applied in
the specific countries, because they are less bureaucratic (e.g. Field Approval),
before starting to develop solutions.
c) With the existing number of gliders, the necessity to certify every repair
cannot be accomplished. Therefore, wide-ranging documents had to be
certified for the daily arising cases, generally allowing repairs and installation
of equipment. The possibilities of the EASA-System are used to reconstitute
the state before EASA. But while formerly the worker knew about his
responsibility, the latter is now diffuse and loses itself in the mentioned
documents, which can only declare general statements. (Similar formalistic
humbug happens with the Maintenance programme).
The finding that a too heavy „regulatory burden“ exists, can only be supported.
Does NPA 2008-07 offer a solution?
4 Evaluation of the Measures proposed in this NPA
4.1 Qualified Entities
“The Agency will use such QE in the certification process when it will be found
to improve the overall efficiency of the process and because it could increase
the proximity with applicants [..]” (page 8)
It is not explained, why introducing a new institution should improve the
overall efficiency. Neither a reason is cognisable, that QE could relieve the
„regulatory burden“. In the contrary: If EASA sees through the certification,
the Technical Visa might be prepared by one person and the Type Certificate
might be signed by her/his supervisor. With a Qualifed Entity (QE) the seesaw
of forms and documents is increased. The difference is, that the expenses for
the approval of the QE must be earned. At the end of the day, General Aviation
will have to pay for it.
Despite all efforts, there will be differences in the standards, which will be
applied by the different QE, especially when the QEs have to compete for the
favor of the design organisations (DO). This is known from other, but similar
systems nowadays.
There is no central accumulation of experience. This could prevent faults that
endanger safety from recurring in projects of different companies. In its
function as certification authority the German LBA has overseen every
company very discreetly. But it sure would not have let continue a project, if
they had known from their experience with other projects that a critical flaw is
inherent.
4.2 Competent Authority
This concept seems to make the cooperation between EASA and national
authorities more flexible.
It cannot be seen, what this has to do with the aims of this NPA.
4.3 ELA who does what
From the perspective of the designer (DO) there is one change: an approved
„certification programme“ will do instead of a DOA or ADOAP. This will
preliminarily spare him to write an ADOAP manual. All the rest, all the
Page 16 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
bureaucratic processes stay the same.
According to Attachment II the DO may do the following, but decide on
nothing:
Establishment of certification basis
Statements of Compliance
Establishment of flight conditions for permit to fly
In-service monitoring
Recommendation for issue of mandatory continuing airworthiness
information
Response to safety recommendations
This is exactly the same as today, when acting under ADOAP rules. Nothing
was added, which could simplify processes (privileges).
One task for the DO was added:
Proposal for selecting QE or NAA
Compared to nowadays, it was also added that DO not only has to deal with
EASA and NAA but with:
EASA
Competent Authority (CA)
NAA or Qualified Entity
In the best case, NAA and CA simply stay identical
Therefore, the „regulatory framework“ will not change, or will become slightly
more complex (due to the increased number of involved parties). Because
there are separate institutions involved (NAA/QE and EASA) additional,
enervating delays have to be expected. Organisational work will be done twice,
which finally will have to be paid by the customer (DO). Naturally there will
only be EASA fees, but these are by far not constant. Additional delay will
originate with the „Notification of QE or NAA“ by EASA. A relief according to the
aim of this NPA cannot be found.
In the section of „Post TC Approvals“ and „Individual Aircraft“ there is no
participation of the DO indicated any more (page 21). It is unclear, whether
there is really no function intended for the DO any more (since he has neither
DOA nor ADOAP), or the corresponding points „Establishment of certification
basis“, „Statements of Compliance“, „Establishment of flight conditions for
permit to fly“ were just left away for simplicity. A clarification would be helpful.
To recapitulate: According to Attachment II everything goes on like before
under ADOAP: Only NAA or QE may classify changes. Even the smallest
changes may not be performed without NAA/QE and EASA. Because of the
expenses of labour time and fees, and because of the fact, that one is unable
to close the file for months, small improvements and corrections will still not be
performed after MDM 032.
4.4 Design and Production Approvals
“ELA 1: Approval of certification programme by the Agency in lieu of DOA or
Alternative Procedures (AP) to DOA although the applicant may elect to have a
higher design approval.” (page 9)
How is the certified type supposed to be cared for? Will there not be formal
reasons again, which make at least ADOAP necessary? A dependency from a
QE or NAA as it is indicated in Attachment II under „Post TC approvals“ is not
acceptable.
Page 17 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
"Production Organisation Approvals (POA) will be handled as at present except
that a simplified process is introduced for ELA. More specifically the
requirement for a quality system is to be replaced by a requirement for
organisational reviews.” (page 9)
For the POA this might be advantageous. It depends on the implementation.
"Production Organisation for ELA 1 will have the privilege to maintain the
products they have manufactured and to issue the corresponding release into
service." (Seite 9)
This is a sensible approach. In the time before EASA, nobody would have
doubted, that the manufacturer of a non-complex airplanes, such as a
sailplane, is able to maintain his products.
In the presentation of the Combined DOA/POA it strikes, that a low-priced
solution is presented at the expenses of third parties that have not yet been
asked for their opinion about that. At the same time, a corresponding
relinquishment of the own fee is ruled out a priori.
Nevertheless a combined DOA/POA can be desirable and sensible. But as long
as there are no serious agreements with the national authorities, it would be
overhasty to see a relief of the regulative burden here.
4.5 Limiting the number of parts that need a Form 1
There are two reasons to reconsider the necessity for a form 1
1. Some inspectors feel such a pressure, that they demand a form 1 even
for standard parts, like the rubber part of a handgrip, common spark
plugs or screws. This is nonsense and makes small parts unnecessarily
expensive.
2. The “Form 1” indicates an original part. Due to the usually very direct
distribution channels (parts are ordered direct at the manufacturer or
his foreign representatives) the danger appears to be very low, that
somebody unwittingly uses a forged part.
But the NPA reads, as if a part, for which no form 1 is necessary any more,
would also not necessarily have to be an Original part any more. This seems to
be like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Is this intended only for airplanes, which were actually certified under the
ELA1/2 process? Or is this supposed to be valid for all airplanes, which fit into
the definitions of ELA1/2?
In the latter case, this would mean, that every part of every sailplane (ELA1!)
would be approved for owner production, as long as one has still a laminating
scheme from the last repair job. This is not a good message! Among the
operators of gliders, there is still a sensible respect for the know-how of the
industrial production, and which cannot always be seen from the outside.
Think of flutter. Large efforts are made to protect sailplanes with their large
aspect ratio and high VDF against flutter. A badly built control surface, which
complies with the information in the maintenance manual (static moment, and
mass), but which has invisible deficiencies, such as a wrong distribution of the
mass balance along the span, can lead to catastrophic consequences.
Therefore, I consider parts of the primary structure, of the secondary structure
(control surfaces!), of the control system, critical parts of the power-plant of
self-launching sailplanes, and at least the propeller and the engine bearer of
self-sustaining powered sailplanes as absolutely out of bounds of owner
production – at least as long as it is not agreed with the manufacturer.
It might be, that for other categories of airplanes, or maybe only for individual
Page 18 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
types, which on purpose have a low-tech design, this is considered differently.
But then it is either bad to lump together airplanes of different design
philosophies and certification standards. Or it must be possible for the DO to
allow or prohibit owner production in certain areas, e.g. with a Technical Note
or Maintenance Manual entry.
In those cases, in which gliders were certified for amateur production (some
older types in wooden or mixed construction), it would be absurd, to demand a
Form 1 from somebody who is producing a part for his glider or the glider of
his club.
4.6 Further Considerations on the introduction of standard changes
and Standard repairs
This has already happened, because the manufacturers were forced to act. The
question is, whether it makes sense, to try to lead the worker’s hand with such
documents. It is not possible to refer to all particularities. Maybe it would make
more sense to recognize the technical training, which is accomplished in the
gliding federations, as well as the examined competence of the certified
inspectors. Beyond that, if helpful circulars would be published with technical
background information, this could very well help EASA achieve a better
reputation.
4.7 Fees and Charges
Maybe EASA should not only distribute her yearly expenses to the companies
and persons, that seek or hold a type certificate, but maybe also think about
what is offered in return. For example one could question, what kind of
expenses EASA has because of an existing type certificate of a sailplane, since
every change has to be paid extra anyway. Small companies, which hold old
type certificates without building new gliders, are forced to a contribution,
without having a regular income from this sector. For the signature on the
approval of flight conditions a fee of about 675€ become due, although all
factual issues have already been clarified with other departments. Why must
this further department be involved at all? With the charge for the creation of
this piece of paper two whole working days of an engineer in the own company
could be paid. This deviates a bit from the NPA, but it shall indicate the broad
spectrum of problems, and remind, that the fees noted in the NPA are by no
means the only ones, which become due during the certification process.
5 Impact Assessment
5.1 Safety
The analysis concerning the safety in General Aviation gives hope, that EASA
will in future find a system that fits for airsport.
But I cannot share the optimism concerning option 2. As described before, a
practical relieve of the regulative burden is almost not noticeable. With or
without ELA1 the bureaucratic and financial effort to certify an improvement
for an existing type is the same. One just lets it be.
It is said that “ELA 1 departs from well proven certification principles and may
have a negative impact on safety, if [..]“ (page 14). Whereas it is said two
paragraphs before, that “[..] their review tends to show that the major
fatalities risks for General Aviation are loss of control and controlled flight into
terrain and that the design related failure rate appears to be very low in all
cases“ (page 14).
But first, probably less than 1 Percent of the airplanes of the General Aviation
have been certified under EASA regulations by now. A system which has only
been existing for five years. Therefore it is daring, to speak of „well proven
Page 19 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
certification principles“, at least in respect of sailplanes.
Second, the pre-EASA-system of certification of sailplanes departed much
further from these principles, giving the manufacturers more privileges (with
DOA or not). In this more liberal and less process-wise strictly organized
system, there was by no way a negative impact on safety (remember: „[..]
design related failure rate appears to be very low in all cases“)
5.2 Economic
Neither I can share the optimism here.
A DOA has already not been necessary for an airplane that fits into ELA1
definition. An ADOAP might still be necessary to care for a certified type even
with ELA1, to meet customer special wishes, and to implement improvements.
Unfortunately, without a simplified DOA or an ADOAP with privileges, there will
not be a difference to today’s situation. Costs for EASA fees and for the
bureaucratic seesaw stay the same.
EASA fees are not geared to the actual work done by the agency for a project,
but have to finance the whole budget. The size of the resulting fees might be a
indirect hint, that while setting up the well proven certification principles, the
size of the organisation was not a topic. Setting up further functional units,
such as Qualified Entities, cannot be for the economic benefit of the
manufacturers of GA aeroplanes.
6 Requirements for a real Relief of the “regulatory burden”
To create again a viable working environment for a DO, it is indispensable to
make it possible for the DO to implement Minor Changes/Repairs with small
financial and bureaucratic expense and in short time. This would make it
necessary to allow the DO
1. to classify changes/repairs.
2. to implement a Minor Change/Repair efficiently, maybe in one of the
following ways:
Simplified DOA or ADOAP with privileges (Autonomous approval)
Autonomous internal approval with the preliminary right to implement
the Minor Change/Repair. Retroactive EASA approval en bloc of the
Minor Changes/Repairs, which accumulated over a certain period (e.g. 6
months). This still offers some supervision, and a solution like this hand
once already been installed and had worked.
A new category below the Minor Change, for which privileges can be
granted
If EASA feels, that the duty of supervision does not allow such liberal handling
without further argumentation, it would be imaginable:
1. that DO has to inform an assigned EASA person formlessly of every
activity.
2. to tie such relieves to certain conditions:
inconspicuous accident statistics
verifiable experience of the DO
experience of EASA with the DO
For the latter it would be understandable, that a certain period of probation for
existing and new companies would be necessary.
Double formalisms like the „Approval of flight conditions“ should be omitted.
With this step nothing is added to the „Technical visa for Approval of flight
conditions for permit to fly“. It is just an expensive and purely bureaucratic
act. It contains no further controlling function and increases safety in no way.
Page 20 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
NOTE:
This specific comment is made to various parts of the NPA.
In order to limit the size of the CRD document the full text is reflected here
only once. In other sections of the CRD a reference to this comment/response
will be shown.
0 Preface
Noted.
1 Summary
Partially agreed; please see the answer below.
2 Aims of this NPA
Noted.
3 Background
Noted. The analysis made by the commentator is shared and this is the reason
why the working group MDM.032 was set up and the relevant NPAs were
produced. This NPA is one of them.
4 Evaluation of the Measures proposed in this NPA
4.1 Qualified Entities
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 6.
4.2 Competent Authority:
This paragraph was introduced to clarify the difference between a competent
authority and a qualified entity. This is a frequently asked question. We took
also the opportunity to highlight that a Member State may nominate more than
one competent authority provided there is no overlap of responsibilities. It is
agreed that this explanation does not have a direct bearing on the proposals
included in the NPA.
4.3 ELA who does what
The purpose of the tables was to give an idea how the system could work in
practice. It is agreed that the main simplification is the alleviation from the AP-
DOA. The introduction of Qualified Entities does not introduce a new layer as it
would replace the reliance on NAA technical visa for design activities. It is
hoped that QE will improve proximity to the applicant.
However, as explained above, the Management Board has not yet adopted the
policy for use of Qualified Entities.
4.4 Design and Production Approvals
Approvals of changes and repairs would be done by EASA based on a technicial
visa from a Qualified Entity. The TC holder would have to discharge its
responsibilities in accordance with 21A.44. This does not require formally an
APDOA.
However, as explained above, the Management Board has not yet adopted the
policy for use of Qualified Entities.
4.5 Limiting the number of parts that need a Form 1
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 7.
4.6 Further considerations on the introduction of standard changes
and standard repairs
Noted.
4.7 Fees and Charges
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1.
5 Impact Assessment
5.1 Safety:
The departure from well established principles simply means that the
demonstration of capability is based on the certification programme and not on
an organisation approval. The reference to ‘well established’ principles was
made because prior Part-21 came in force several countries had adopted JAR-
21 that contain very comparable principles.
Page 21 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
5.2 Economic:
Noted.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1.
6 Requirements for a real relief of the ‘regulatory burden’:
Agreed.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 3.
comment 70 comment by: John Tempest
response Accepted
I believe that it is vital for EASA to produce a Code of Practice and a basic
Design and Production Handbook that small organisations may work to, rather
than small organisations having to draft a company Exposition and Design and
Production Handbooks from scratch. This should be a finished publication which
the accountable manager can sign up to, instead of having to start with
the normal 'Anybody's Exposition' which is usually only a list of paragraph
headings.
A standard design and production handbook, provided that it is kept simple
and easy to follow, would save the vast expenditure of manual writing for
start-up organisations, at a time when the organisation may not be familiar
with the format and content required by EASA. An option should remain for
organisations to write their own Exposition and handbooks to allow flexibility
to interpret the rules.
The current ritual of writing handbooks before a company can commence
trading is a major disincentive. The requirements could easily be covered by a
published code of conduct and standard published handbooks for design and
production which should be made available from EASA.
The Agency will publish the AMC using existing material.
comment 74 comment by: Dyn'aéro
Présentation / Overview
La société Dyn'Aéro est une entreprise Française constituée depuis 1992.
550 aéronefs ont été produits depuis cette date :
200 aéronefs relevant de la définition actuelle de l'ULM européen,
300 aéronefs vendus sous forme de kit (2 et 4 places),
50 aéronefs vendus clefs en main dans les cadres de certifications non
OACI.
Le rythme annuel de production aujourd'hui est de 70 machines par an
principalement sur le marché Européen.
Tous les aéronefs produits à ce jour par Dyn'Aéro répondent à la définition de
ELA1.
Dyn'Aéro est un postulant potentiel dès aujourd'hui pour la certification de
plusieurs de ses aéronefs au titre de l'ELA1.
Nos commentaires seront donc faits dans ce cadre, et uniquement pour les
avions.
Dyn'Aero is a French company established since 1992.
550 aircrafts have been produced since this date:
200 aircrafts under the current definition of European ultralight.
300 aircrafts sold as a kit (2 and 4 seaters),
Page 22 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
50 ready to fly aircrafts within the framework of ICAO non-certification.
The annual rate of production nowadays is 70 machines per year mainly on the
European market.
All aircraft produced so far by Dyn'Aero meet the definition of ELA1.
Today, Dyn'Aéro is a potential applicant for certification of several of its aircraft
under the ELA1 category.
Our comments will be made in this framework, and only for aircrafts.
Commentaires généraux / General comments
Dyn'Aero remercie l'AESA pour l'excellente initiative que représente la volonté
de définir une règlementation adaptée à l'aviation de loisir. L'objectif explicite
de cette évolution réglementaire est la diminution des coûts de certification et
d'exploitation (notamment au niveau de la maintenance) des avions de loisirs.
D'une manière générale, nous pensons que les modifications proposées sont
ambitieuses et de nature à atteindre l'objectif annoncé qui est capital pour
l'industrie aéronautique Européenne dans ce secteur.
Cependant, les points suivants (que nous détaillerons par la suite) nous
semblent en mesure de mettre en péril la tenu de cet objectif.
Beaucoup des allègements proposés restent aux stades des intentions
et n'ont pas les précisions nécessaires permettant de garantir une
bonne application du texte dans son esprit initial par les personnes
(fonctionnaires ou membres d'une QE) qui seront en charge de son
application opérationnelle,
L'égalité de traitement entre les différents pays membres, possédant
des cultures et des infrastructures de contrôle extrêmement disparate,
n'est pas suffisamment garantie,
L'introduction de la notion de LSA est à la fois totalement inutile (la
définition des machines LSA étant couverte par l'ELA1), mais également
dangereuse pour la compréhension du texte et pour les futures
évolutions réglementaires pour les aéronefs aujourd'hui en annexe II.
Dyn'Aero thanks EASA for the excellent initiative that represents the will to
define regulations suited to the recreational aviation. The explicit objective of
this regulatory development is the reduction of certification and exploitation
costs (including the level of maintenance) for recreational aircrafts.
Broadly speaking, we believe that the proposed changes are ambitious and
likely to achieve the announced objective that is vital for the European
aeronautics industry is this sector.
However, the following items (which we detail later) seem endanger the
correct objectives reach:
Many of the proposed reductions remains in the stages of intentions and
do not have the information necessary to ensure a proper application of
the text in its original spirit by the persons (officials or members of a
QE) to be in charge of its operational application ,
The equal treatment between the various member countries, with
cultures and control infrastructures extremely disparate, is not
sufficiently guaranteed,
The introduction of the LSA concept is, on the one hand, completely
useless (the definition of LSA machines being covered by the ELA1), but
also, on the other hand, dangerous for the text understanding and for
future regulatory changes for aircraft which are today under the annex
II.
Commentaire général : Egalité de traitement / General comments :
Page 23 of 446

Equality of treatment
Propositions :
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Dyn'Aéro propose la publication des AMC utilisées par un constructeur pour
l'usage des autres constructeurs.
Raisons :
Les imprécisions du texte ne garantissent pas l'égalité de traitement entre les
différents pays. Or cette égalité de traitement est primordiale
Seules les précisions demandées dans les paragraphes précédents
permettraient cette égalité de traitement.
D'autre part, l'un des fondements de la diminution des coûts étant l'utilisation
d'AMC, il est donc indispensable que les AMC utilisés dans un pays soient
immédiatement acceptés au sein des autres pays.
Proposals :
Dyn'Aéro proposes the publication of AMC used by a manufacturer for use by
other manufacturers.
Reasons:
The inaccuracies in the text does not guarantee equality of treatment between
different countries. And this equality of treatment is essential.
Only the precisions requested in the preceding paragraphs would allow equal
treatment.
On the other hand, one of the foundations of cost reduction being the use of
AMC, it is therefore essential that the AMC used in a country be immediately
accepted in other countries.
response Partially accepted
Presentation:
Noted.
General comment:
Thank you for your support.
We agree that it is necessary to develop detailed procedures for qualified
entities and AMC to Part-21.
Recurrent rulemaking tasks to issue AMC resuting from certification experience
will be considered by the Agency.
Equal treatment is ensured by EASA approval of certification programme and
oversight of QE.
We agree that LSA is part of ELA; however we disagree that the CS-LSA is
useless as it provides an appropriate certification code for this kind of
machines.
In addition, please see CRD Part I paragraph 2.
comment 79 comment by: PZL-Austria Handelsagentur
Overview of PZL-Austria: Niessler Handelsagentur
Sales Agency representing since 1992 now or in past:
Page 24 of 446

Allstar SZD Glider
PZL-Swidnik
LAK Lithuania
PZL-Mielec
MarS
Air-Pol
DynAero S.A
Funkwerke (Filser)
Avionic
PRC Instruments
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Guidance and completion of Type Certificates acceptance at various National
Aviation Authorities for PW-5, PW-6, SZD 50-3, SZD 51-1, SZD 55, SZD 59,
LAK 17a, ATL-88/90.
As well as supplier at given times to:
Diamond Aircraft
Czech Aircraft Works
Rotax Engines
Comco Ikarus
Alisport
Apollo Halley
Bilsavia
DynAero
HTC
General:
I thank EASA for this excellent and innovative initiative that represents a new
approach to light sports aircraft in Europe. Based on the goal to reduce the
cost of certification production and maintenance however there are some few
points which may endanger this objective to make it a full success.
Thank You.
response Noted
Norbert Niessler
niessler@aon.at
The Agency thanks the commentator for his support.
comment 84 comment by: René Fournier
I fully support the creation of a Single European Market for aviation
products as it is clearly in the interest of the whole aviation community,
including small recreational aviation, which now benefits from free movement
of aircrafts, parts and appliances in Europe.
This also required an harmonisation of the level of safety rules, which should
also be accepted in its principle. I however regretted level of constraints
imposed by Regulations 1702/2003 and 2042/2003 on small recreational
aviation, since it was unrealistic and far too burdensome. I thus now welcome
the creation of working group MDM.032 and the result of the work undertaken
Page 25 of 446

esponse Noted
in that context.
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 100 comment by: European Sailplane Manufacturers
response Noted
For the European sailplane manufacturers one important approach of making
development of small aircraft less stringent during certification of new products
is missing in NPA 2008-07.
This is the certification of engines and propellers.
Due to changes between Part 21 and former JAR-21 it is now necessary to
certify the engines and propellers seperately.
(At least the EASA interpreted the wording of 21A.21 (d) in this sense.)
Herewith the manufacturers propose changed wording for this paragraph in the
context of ELA aircraft:
In the case of an aircraft according to 21A.14 (b) or (d),
related to engine or propeller installation, the engine or propeller, or both,
must:
(i) have a typecertificate issued or determined in accordance with this
Regulation; or
(ii) have been shown to be in compliance with the certification specifications
necessary to ensure safe flight of the aircraft.
Such a rule would be in-line with earlier JAR-21 which allowed certification of
an engine or propeller within certification of the aircraft which helped
manufacturers very much to develop new powerplant concepts.
This process has not led to saftey concerns.
Furthermore such a change would be fitting to the general approach of this
NPA 2008-07 which is aimed at reduced administrative burden for
manufacturers of small aircraft.
Last but not least this also would benefit the produces and manufacturers of
such engines and propellers. Today especially these companies suffer most
from the rule changes since Part 21 became active. In former times they could
concentrate on engine / propeller development and the certification was
delegated to the aircraft manufacturers. This task sharing worked well and was
beneficary to both partners. Today these typically very small companies
producing engines / propellers simply cannot afford the added burden of
product / organisation certification due the relative small financial volume of
their products.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(1).
comment 103 comment by: Ultraleicht-Flugverein Saar-Pfalz e.V.
General comment
The General Aviation crisis - with the solitary exception of the ultralights in the
frame of Annex II - is resulting from the increasing regulatory harassment and
Page 26 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
increasing costs (which result directly from over-regulation). These increased
regulations are officially justified by a desire of increasing flight safety in this
leisure activity, but prove to have no practical effect - at least on safety -
except
* decreasing the number of pilots,
* decreasing the number of hours flown by pilots as a direct effect of the
escalating costs,
* obstructing technical progress as a direct effect of the escalating costs for
certifying parts and products, which induces the attitude to use and sell a
product - once certified - as long, as possible,
all this even decreasing safety!
I welcome this initiative, which is likely to allow many Europeans pilots to
benefit from the light regulatory frame light aviation is enjoying in many
countries. The wish for an LSA equivalent in EU is a direct result of the wish for
greater operational possibilities, which have become a simple reality because
of the performances of modern ultralights. Realising these greater operational
possibilities within the framework of present Annex II (which is technically
absolutely possible) creates complex and extremely expensive aircrafts - the
contrary of the simple and affordable aircrafts, ultralights wanted to be in the
beginning. US-LSA shows a very reasonable way out of this situation.
To guarantee the success of this new regulation, I think that EASA showed
pusillanimity in its approach of the future certification process, particularly
when it comes to the ELA1 class, which is intended to encompass the greatest
possible number of leisure aircraft.
It is only by setting up a self certification by the manufacturer that the costs of
this process could be drastically reduced and thus support the creativity and
the competition essential to the development of attracting leisure aviation.
Comparing a self declaration system to a system based on Qualified Entities
(QE), I am convinced that
* QE is far more expensive
* QE only provides a fictitious improvement of security
FAA-LSA is taking the security aspect into account,
*
1. by stipulating technically simple and good-natured aircrafts, and
2. by distinguishing two different cases of security/protection level needed:
* S-LSA, quasi („QE") certified by the manufacturer for a serial production,
which must not be modified.
* E-LSA, built as an „Experimental", which can be modified.
Instead of setting up a heavy process of control involving many costly third
parties, the Agency could have been satisfied with a survey control and probing
system, reserving it's right to check the declarations of the manufacturers, or
when failure to match the certification codes is suspected.
Thus, I estimate that the evolution suggested - even if it constitutes a certain
lightening of their tasks for the existing manufacturers of certified aircrafts -
will be insufficient to stop the decline of the leisure aviation as a whole.
This is more than certain when reviewing the currently published proposals
Page 27 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
related to licensing and maintenance procedures, which are practically as
heavy as what prevailed before (national legislations). The promised innovation
seems to be nothing else but a slightly modified reproduction of the stillborn
child VLA, which has never had any positive effect on recreational aviation. So,
I express my large disappointment about the way those promising new rules
are developed.
General conclusion:
The proposed changes in the present NPA were not what the light aviation
community asked for. The proposed amendments represent rather an attempt
of resuscitation of the conventional light aviation than of a successful
integration of the modern Ultralights in the European regulatory frame work.
There is a serious risk, that the successful light aviation, represented by the
modern Ultralights, will be killed by the present proposals.
The future of Annex II must not be related with the introduction of ELA, the
way, it is proposed now. Within the Annex II, a lot of pilots fly, a lot of
manufacturers work and a lot of employees earn a living. The Annex II has to
be protected until ELA has proved that it can be as successful as the Annex II
area. In such circumstances I express firmly my clear and determined choice
that aircraft below 450kg MTOW (472,5Kg with recovery parachute) should
remain outside of the scope of EASA, in Annex II. I am very satisfied with the
current situation and have no wish whatsoever to see it change.
Concerning the aspect of the subclass LSA, whose purpose it is to facilitate the
work of the European manufacturers already exporting in the USA, I am
astonished about the technical framework introduced by the NPA. Actually, the
American LSA class is strictly limited to a minimum stall speed without flaps to
45 kts and to a 120 kts maximum full power level speed. Also prohibited are
the use of variable pitch propellers and retractable gears. If exonerating ELA 1
of these limitations, which justify the lightened regulation granted to this new
class of aircraft by the FAA, the Agency does not achieve this goal.
Therefore, I hereby clearly claim to adopt the original definition of the FAA-LSA
category without reservation.
Justification:
* US-LSA has well been considered and created with a good know-how. It is
principally useful.
* It is better to accept a limitation of technical complexity, than a limitation of
operational use of the aircrafts.
* Accepting a limitation of technical complexity is the best argument for
staying out of complex (over)regulation.
* Technical complexity is expensive.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 132 comment by: SAMA Swiss Aircraft Maintenance Association
SAMA is very much in favour of proportional, simplified airworthiness
regulations for non complex aircraft throughout Europe.
Experience with presently existing EASA airworthiness regulations being
Page 28 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
applied to general aviation aircraft by the NAA has clearly shown that thse
rules represent an overkill, mainly in respect to continuing airworthiness, but
also for some aspects of initial certification. The consequence may be the
contrary of the original intent insofar as regulations which are not adapted (to
effective and perceived risks as well as to the economic capacity of the sector)
and straightforward to follow tend to be circumvented.
The process chosen by EASA to derive simplified requirements from those
designed for large transport aircraft, and to do it in several partial processes,
unfortunately results in a patchwork of proposed amendments which is difficult
to evaluate in its overall effect. Even though the proposed
requirements/procedures for the least complex aircraft are relaxed, the
regulatory approach appears to be more complex than for large aircraft.
We advocate regulations which are easy to comprehend and to follow by all
people involved. This is an elementary human factors consideration. Therefore,
the proposed segmentation of light aircraft in several weight categories or/and
'processes' should not be pursued. Instead, we would favour a straight forward
use of a 'non complex' regime as implied by 216/2008, article 3(j) also for
initial airworthiness considerations. The principles (simplified procedures and
shift of responsibilities towards the industry) proposed for ELA should be
applicable without further subdivision.
Obviously, the definition of a less segmented set of rules would not be be
achievable within the presently proposed implementation schedules, including
Opinion 02/2008. A longer delay for applying Part-M to these aircraft would be
necessary. Obviously, shifting any applicability date for non large aircraft would
not create any safety gap. The whole standardisation process aims at creating
a level playing field, it is not a necessity for safety reasons in this category of
aircraft.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 138 comment by: Fridrich Jan
Domnívám se, že změny navrhované v tomto NPA nejsou tím co jsem
očekával. Chtěl jsem o samotě stojící kategorii evropské LSA (pokrývající
všechny čtyři základní oblasti leteckých aktivit - letovou způsobilost, údržbu,
licencování a provoz), která by zůstala kompatibilní s americkou LSA. Navržené
dodatky jsou více pokusem o resuscitaci konvenčního lehkého letectví, než
pokusem o úspěšnou integraci lehkých sportovních letadel do MTOM 600kg
(vycházejících z moderních UL letadel) do evropského regulačního systému.
Existuje vážné riziko, že úspěšná oblast lehkého letectví (reprezentovaná
moderními UL letadly) bude těmito návrhy zničena.
Současně s tímto návrhem ale musí být chráněn současný Annex II, minimálně
do doby než se nový sytém ukáže jako funkční a stejně úspěšný jako systém
založený na Annexu II. Dnes je mnoho pilotů, výrobců a zaměstnanců
závislých na správné funkci systému Annex II. Jeho možné změny nemohou
být svazovány s představením systému ELA.
Domnívám se, že představené technické specifikace mohou být funkční, ale
stále si myslím, že lepší variantou by bylo vytvoření samostatně stojící
evropské LSA, která by mohla vyřešit všechny specifické problémy této
kategorie na jednom místě.
Navrhovaný systém se jeví jako velmi komplikovaný, přesto by mohl být
Page 29 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
funkční, ale jeho funkčnost přímo závisí na:
1/ Poplatcích EASA - jejich stávající výše a struktura neumožní zejména malým
podnikům zapojení do tohoto nového systému. Výše poplatků je neúměrná pro
lehké letectví.
2/ Mechanismus akreditace QE - Kvalifikovaných subjektů je nejasný, stejně
jako dělba kompetence mezi EASA a NAA pro získání POA (Oprávnění
organizace k výrobě) případně kombinovanému DOA/POA, není také jasné
kolik tento proces bude stát
3/ jakým způsobem bude EASA řešit požadavky na získání akreditace QE a ve
stejném čase nejméně 20 žádostí evropských výrobců LSA, která se již
vyrábějí, domníváme se že tento systém není pro lehké letectví dostatečně
flexibilní. Domnívám se, že bude nutné připravit systém pro převod již
existujících LSA letadel.
4/ jak bude nastaven celý EASA systém tzn. i Údržba, Provoz, Licencování atd.
5/Celý systém je navržen jen pro továrně vyráběná letadla. Jak se budou řešit
případy amatérské stavby z továrně vyrobených stavebnic letadel, která budou
mít typový certifikát na základě procesu ELA?
Navrhuji
Vytvořit samostatně stojící evropskou kategorii LSA s jednotným Evropským
technickým předpisem založeným na ASTM F2245, s jednotným Typovým
certifikátem. Přepisy budou jednotné evropské ale implementované na národní
úrovni pověřenými národními sportovními organizacemi a v zemích, kde takové
organizace neexistují, příslušným NAA. Na přípravě takového systému jsem
připraven se podílet.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 151 comment by: Light Aircraft Association of the Czech Republic
Light Aircraft Association of the Czech Republic - LAA ĆR thinks that proposed
changes in the present NPA were not what the light aviation community asked
for. We asked for a stand-alone European LSA category (covering all basic
four areas of aviation activity - Initial airworthinnes,Maintenance, Licensing
and Operations), compatible with LSA category in the United States. The
proposed amendments represent more an attempt at resuscitation of the
conventional light aviation than of a successful integration of the light sport
aircraft with MTOM 600kg (based on modern microlights) in the European
regulatory frame work. There is a serious risk that the successful light aviation
(represented by the modern microlights) will be killed by the present
proposals.
At the same time the Annex II must be protected until this new proposed
system will proove that it can be as successfull as the Annex II system.Within
the AnnexII a lot of pilots fly, a lot of manufacturers work and a lot of
employees earn living. The possible withdrawal of AnnexII must not be related
with the introduction of ELA system.
LAA ČR thinks that technical specifications could work, but we still think that it
Page 30 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
would be better to have separate stand alone European LSA category which
could solve all specific requirements of this category at one place.
The new system which EASA is proposing is quite complicated and will strongly
depend on following aspects:
1- EASA fees and charges - if they will stay as they are it will ruin small
companies who are now producing LSA for USA - Proposal - use the financing
based on small fee from airtickets - the same as is used in the USA.
2- it is not clear how the system of appointing Qualified Entities will work and
how much it will cost to run such systém. Also the kompetence between EASA
and NAA concerning POA and combined DOA/POA is unclear.
3- ability of EASA to respond on time - we feel that for light aviation the
flexibility of current systém is not enough
4- functionality of the whole system depends also on results of proposals for
Maintenance, Licensing, OPS etc, on this time it is not clear that the whole
system will work for light aviation.
5- very important aspect is that it is not clear how wil EASA handle many
applications for LSA certification on day one of validity of new rule, in the same
time the QE should be ready as well. It would be appropriate to introduce some
grandfather rules for existing aircraft.
6-this new system is designed for company manufactured aircraft only. How
would be solved homebuild from copany manufactured kit of aircraft which will
receive Type Certificate based on ELA process?
Proposal
We propose to create stand alone european LSA category with MTOM 600kg
with common European technical requirements based on ASTM F2245, with
European Type Certificate. The rules will be common european but
implemented on national level by acredited national sporting organisations and
in the countries where such organisations do not exist by relevant NAA. LAA ČR
is ready to help with creation of such system.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 166 comment by: Alexander Eich
1. Suggested changes in the present NPA were not what the light
aviation community demanded. We wanted a stand-aloneEuropeanLSA
category,compatible with LSA categoryin the United States. The
proposed amendments represent more an attempt at resuscitation of
the conventional light aviation than of a successful integration of the
modern Ultralights in the European regulatory frame work. There is a
serious risk that the successful light aviation (represented by the
modern Ultralights) will be killed by the present proposals.
2. The withdrawal of Annex II must not be related with the introduction
of ELA. Within the Annex II a lot of pilots fly, a lot of manufacturers
work and a lot of employees earn a living. The Annex II has to be
protected until ELA has prooved that it can be as successful as the
Page 31 of 446

esponse Noted
Annex II area.
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 213 comment by: DynAero Iberica
Présentation / Overview
DynAero Ibérica est une societé Portugaise de production d'avions légers et
ULM métallique et composite constituée depuis 2001, ayant produit 300 avions
a ce jour.
Le rythme annuel de production aujourd'hui est de 70 machines par an
principalement sur le marché Européen.
Tous les aéronefs produits à ce jour par DynAero Ibérica répondent à la
définition de ELA1.
DynAero Ibérica est un postulant potentiel dès aujourd'hui pour la certification
de plusieurs de ses aéronefs au titre de l'ELA1.
Nos commentaires seront donc faits dans ce cadre, et uniquement pour les
avions.
DynAero Ibérica is a Portuguese company wich produces composite and metal
light aircraft established since 2001.
300 aircrafts have been produced since this date.
The annual rate of production nowadays is 70 machines per year mainly on the
European market.
All aircraft produced so far by DynAero Ibérica meet the definition of ELA1.
Today, DynAero Ibérica is a potential applicant for certification of several of its
aircraft under the ELA1 category.
Our comments will be made in this framework, and only for aircrafts.
Commentaires généraux / General comments
DynAero Ibérica remercie l'AESA pour l'excellente initiative que représente la
volonté de définir une règlementation adaptée à l'aviation de loisir. L'objectif
explicite de cette évolution réglementaire est la diminution des coûts de
certification et d'exploitation (notamment au niveau de la maintenance) des
avions de loisirs.
D'une manière générale, nous pensons que les modifications proposées sont
ambitieuses et de nature à atteindre l'objectif annoncé qui est capital pour
l'industrie aéronautique Européenne dans ce secteur.
Cependant, les points suivants (que nous détaillerons par la suite) nous
semblent en mesure de mettre en péril la tenu de cet objectif.
• Beaucoup des allègements proposés restent aux stades des intentions et
n'ont pas les précisions nécessaires permettant de garantir une bonne
application du texte dans son esprit initial par les personnes (fonctionnaires ou
membres d'une QE) qui seront en charge de son application opérationnelle,
• L'égalité de traitement entre les différents pays membres, possédant des
cultures et des infrastructures de contrôle extrêmement disparate, n'est pas
suffisamment garantie,
• L'introduction de la notion de LSA est à la fois totalement inutile (la définition
des machines LSA étant couverte par l'ELA1), mais également dangereuse
pour la compréhension du texte et pour les futures évolutions réglementaires
pour les aéronefs aujourd'hui en annexe II.
DynAero Ibérica thanks EASA for the excellent initiative that represents the will
to define regulations suited to the recreational aviation. The explicit objective
of this regulatory development is the reduction of certification and exploitation
Page 32 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
costs (including the level of maintenance) for recreational aircrafts.
Broadly speaking, we believe that the proposed changes are ambitious and
likely to achieve the announced objective that is vital for the European
aeronautics industry is this sector.
However, the following items (which we detail later) seem endanger the
correct objectives reach:
• Many of the proposed reductions remains in the stages of intentions and do
not have the information necessary to ensure a proper application of the text
in its original spirit by the persons (officials or members of a QE) to be in
charge of its operational application ,
• The equal treatment between the various member countries, with cultures
and control infrastructures extremely disparate, is not sufficiently guaranteed,
• The introduction of the LSA concept is, on the one hand, completely useless
(the definition of LSA machines being covered by the ELA1), but also, on the
other hand, dangerous for the text understanding and for future regulatory
changes for aircraft which are today under the annex II.
Commentaire général : Egalité de traitement / General comments : Equality of
treatment
Propositions :
DynAero Ibérica propose la publication des AMC utilisées par un constructeur
pour l'usage des autres constructeurs.
Raisons :
Les imprécisions du texte ne garantissent pas l'égalité de traitement entre les
différents pays. Or cette égalité de traitement est primordiale
Seules les précisions demandées dans les paragraphes précédents
permettraient cette égalité de traitement.
D'autre part, l'un des fondements de la diminution des coûts étant l'utilisation
d'AMC, il est donc indispensable que les AMC utilisés dans un pays soient
immédiatement acceptés au sein des autres pays.
Proposals :
DynAero Ibérica proposes the publication of AMC used by a manufacturer for
use by other manufacturers.
Reasons:
The inaccuracies in the text does not guarantee equality of treatment between
different countries. And this equality of treatment is essential.
Only the precisions requested in the preceding paragraphs would allow equal
treatment.
On the other hand, one of the foundations of cost reduction being the use of
AMC, it is therefore essential that the AMC used in a country be immediately
accepted in other countries.
Presentation: Noted.
General comment: Thank you for your support. We agree that it is necessary
to develop detailed procedures for qualified entities and AMC to Part-21.
Recurrent rulemaking tasks to issue AMC resuting from certification experience
will be considered by the Agency.
Equal treatment is ensured by EASA approval of certification programme and
oversight of QE. We agree that LSA is part of ELA; however we disagree that
the CS-LSA is useless as it provides an appropriate certification code for this
kind of machines. This comment could indicate that the applicability of CS-VLA
is too close to the applicability of CS-LSA.
Page 33 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Please also see CRD Part I paragraph b(2) and the resulting text.
comment 228 comment by: Aero-Club of Switzerland
response Noted
To do the work, the Aero-Club of Switzerland prepared a list of all weight limits
the Organisation could find. The result: There are very many. We propose to
the Agency to take a look at this fact, to reduce the number of the actual
weight limits to the necessary minimum within the near future.
The Agency has tried to define proportionate rules and this implies defining
several weight criteria. The Agency will consider the comment in future
regulatory work.
comment 229 comment by: Lyndhurst Touchdown
response Noted
General
In general our company is very pleased with the proposal. This represents a
huge step forward for light aviation within Europe. Manufacturers and light
aircraft pilots need a more lightly regulated form of aviation which can adapt
and develop more quickly than the heavily restrained structure that currently
exists. Harmonisation within Europe is essential with approved aircraft being
accepted in all European countries and pilots entitlements being transferred
across borders.
The Agency thanks the commentator for their support.
comment 234 comment by: Flight Design GmbH Matthias Betsch CEO
General comment
1. According FAA and EAA, the amateur built aircraft which have not any
design or manufacturing oversight have an excellent safety record in the
US. Design errors are less often reasons for accidents than with certified
aircrafts. Maintenance mistakes and pilot errors (mainly during first flights)
are more often reason for accidents of amateur built aircraft. In 3 years
experience of LSA in USA only one design issue did cause an accident with
an aircraft holding also a standard type certificate.
These are hard statistic data that clearly proofs that aircrafts with design and
manufacturing oversight do not automatically have any safety benefit.
Statistics show even the opposite. One reason is considered to be that
traditional standards (Part 21,22,23,25) are static and not dynamically
developing to safety needs like ASTM F2245, F2279 and others do. Another
reason is considered that with the significantly enlarged liability when doing
self declaration, most companies are out of their own interest much more
careful.
2. The proposed changes in the present NPA are not what the light aviation
community asked for. We plead for a stand-aloneEuropeanLSA
category,compatible with LSA categoryin the United States. The proposed
amendments represent more an attempt at resuscitation of the
conventional general aviation than of a successful integration of the
modern (Ultra)lights in the European regulatory frame work. There is a
Page 34 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
serious risk that the world leading European light aviation industry
(represented by the modern Advanced Ultralights) will be destroyed totally
by the present proposals.
3. The withdrawal of Annex II must not be related with the introduction of
ELA. Within the Annex II a lot of pilots fly, a lot of manufacturers work and
a lot of employees earn a living. The Annex II has to be protected at least
until ELA has prooved that it can be as successful as the Annex II area.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 238 comment by: Walter Da Costa
General comment
1. According FAA and EAA, the amateur built aircraft which have not any
design or manufacturing oversight have an excellent safety record in the
US. Further more design and manufacturing errors are less than with
certified aircrafts. Maintenance and pilot errors (first flights) are more. In 3
years LSA in the US only one design issue did come up and that was with
an type certified aircraft.
That clearly proofs that aircrafts with design and manufacturing oversight do
not delivery any safety benefit. Statistics show even the opposite. The reason
can be that traditional standards (Part 21,22,23,25) are static and not
dynamically developing to safety needs like ASTM 2245,2279 and others.
2. The proposed changes in the present NPA were not what the light
aviation community asked for. We plead for a stand-aloneEuropeanLSA
category,compatible with LSA categoryin the United States. The proposed
amendments represent more an attempt at resuscitation of the
conventional general aviation than of a successful integration of the
modern (Ultra)lights in the European regulatory frame work. There is a
serious risk that the world leading European light aviation industry
(represented by the modern Advanced Ultralights) will be destroyed totally
by the present proposals.
3. The withdrawal of Annex II must not be related with the introduction of
ELA. Within the Annex II a lot of pilots fly, a lot of manufacturers work and
a lot of employees earn a living. The Annex II has to be protected until ELA
has prooved that it can be as successful as the Annex II area.
Comment 1
Page 8 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - Qualified Entities
negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Proposal 1: QE´s shall also be appointed for the Auditing work to obtain DOA
and POA that allows design and production work under ELA 1. This is fully in
line with basic regulation 216/2008 Chapter II Section I Article 20 2(a).
In addition to this, it must be ensured that a common level is achieved for
Page 35 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
applicants throughout all the EASA member states. This is mostly the issue
from side of the QE´s, when they are approved and supervised by the
Authority solely. Involvement of the NAA´s because of varying capabilities in
practice shows that this is not the case and this will lead to different safety
levels and unfair competition . This problem can be overcome by a Pan
European QE. It is not the task of the EASA, or this NPA and comments, to
initiate such a Pan European QE, but the effect and usage, when it comes to
existence, must be defined.
Proposal 2: Pan-European QE´s by their pan European nature must be
appointed by the Agency. In case the applicant selects the Pan- European QE,
combined DOA/POA applications will be automatically dealt with by the Agency,
and not through CA´s or NAA´s.
Comment 2
Page 9 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - Design and Production Organization Approvals
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Comment 3
Page 9 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - Design and Production Organisation Approvals
Negative, the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
As is commonly known and transparent through their individual approvals, the
existing NAA´s have a sometimes significantly different qualification and
capability level, due to whatever reason. As the NPA is formulated, it is up to
the NAA of the country, where the company is based, to select, whether they
will deal with the combined DOA/POA approval themselves, or whether they
delegate their part to the Agency. The reason for this decision is completely
left to the NAA. As by widely know experience NAA's have different levels, this
will lead to unacceptable different level of safty and unfair competition.
Page 36 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Proposal: It must be clear from the start that combined DOA/POA approvals
are dealt with always by the Agency. If this is not in line with the basic
regulation, a general agreement between Agency and NAA´s must be achieved
when issuing these changes, that NAA´s accept combined DOA/POA
applications to be dealt through the agency on the basis of basic regulation
20(2)b(ii).
Comment 4
Page 10 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - Limiting the number of parts that need a Form 1 -
Question 1
Answer to Question:
It is the opinion of this stakeholder, that it is appropriate to limit the possibility
to release parts without a Form 1 as described in the NPA to aircraft that are
used for non-commercial purposes. However, for all commercial usage it is
possible to install parts without explicit Form 1 that come with a release
certificate from the aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released
parts must not have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft
manufacturer, but they must undergo the same quality inspection process that
this specific part undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft
manufacturer upon initial installation.
Comment 5
Page 10 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - Creation of a Certification Specification for Light
Sport Aeroplanes
Comment 2 valid also here.
Comment 6
Page 10 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - Creation of a Certification Specification for Light
Sport Aeroplanes
The slight differences have a noticeable effect to the product:
- A limitation do Day VFR only is considered not acceptable, as the standard
explicitly provides requirements for night VFR (already now) and IFR
(upcoming right now) operation.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not
mean, that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or IFR.
This still requires the proper license with endorsement. Also, requirements
to equipment for operation at night and under IFR are also not overruled.
So allowing principally the usage of the aircraft in this conditions, under the
limitations of the ELA concept, does not pose a factual reduction in level of
safety. This can be clearly verified through the 3 years plus LSA experience
in USA.
- It is in the very nature of the ASTM standard, to evolve, in order to
further raise the level of safety and keep the requirements always up to
date. For FAA registered LSA it is a must, after a certain transition time, for
the applicant to upgrade his design in line with newer standards. In the
implementation proposed by EASA, an applicant may choose to stay on the
Page 37 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
lower level, selling an aircraft of the same category at a lower level of
qualification, whilst others are forced to update, as they already have to do
when they sell to FAA world.
Comment 7
Page 22 A. EXPLANATORY NOTE - Attachment 2 - Who does what -
Initial and Continued Airworthiness - ELA 1 - Organisational Approval
Comments 1 and 2 apply here as well - link same comment to this position.
Comment 8
Page 22 A. EXPLANATORY NOTE - Attachment 2 - Who does what -
Initial and Continued Airworthiness - ELA 1 - Accredition and
Surveillance
Accreditation of Design Organizations must be under Agency, not NAA, already
now.
Comments to POA also have effect on last line here.
Comment 9
Page 26/27 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart B - 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Comment 2 also valid here
Comment 10
Page 26/27 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart B - 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart J. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart J, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the design assurance system (21A.239) on the basis of
a valid approval following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration,
but valid positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN
ISO 9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Comment 11
Page 30 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart G - 21A.139 Quality System
Comment 2 also valid here
Page 38 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Comment 12
Page 30 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart G - 21A.139 Quality System
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to
exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart G. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart K, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the Quality System (21A.139 (a) (b) or (c)) on the
basis of a valid approval following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid
positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO
9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Comment 13
Page 30 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart K - 21A.307 Release of parts and appliances for installation
Enhance (c) so that for all commercial usage it is possible to install parts
without explicit Form 1 only when they come with a release certificate from the
aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released parts must not
have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft manufacturer, but they
must undergo the same quality inspection process that this specific part
undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft manufacturer upon
initial installation.
Comment 14
Page 31/32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart L - Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for
Design and Production of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and
(c) - 21A.359 Design Assurance System
Comment 2 also valid here
Comment 15
Page 31/32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart L - Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for
Design and Production of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and
(c) - 21A.359 Design Assurance System
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
Page 39 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b) or (c) , when deviating from the relevant
paragraphs for the design assurance system but having a valid approval
following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration, but valid positive
audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The
approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Comment 16
Page 32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart L - Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for
Design and Production of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and
(c) - 21A.361 Production Organisational Review
Comment 2 also applies here
Comment 17
Page 32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart L - Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for
Design and Production of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and
(c) - 21A.361 Production Organisational Review
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient
to exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (c) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b), when deviating from the relevant paragraphs
for the Production Organizational Review on the basis of a valid approval
following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid positive audit of accepted
organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The approval will be
accepted without further auditing or checking.
Comment 18
Page 42 - B. Draft Rules - II. New Certification Specifications for Light
Sport Aeroplanes - Subpart A - General - LSA 3 Aeroplane categories
Comment 2 also applies here
Page 40 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Comment 19
Page 42 - B. Draft Rules - II. New Certification Specifications for Light
Sport Aeroplanes - Subpart A - General - LSA 3 Aeroplane categories
Negative. A limitation to VFR day is considered as not acceptable, as the
standard offers well suitable standards also for VFR night operation and soon
IFR operation. There is no real reason visible why this can not be accepted as
well in EASA world, like in FAA world.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not mean,
that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or IFR. This still
requires the proper license with endorsement. Also, requirements to equipment
for operation at night and under IFR are also not overruled. So allowing
principally the usage of the aircraft in this conditions, under the limitations of
the ELA concept, does not pose a factual reduction in level of safety. This can
be clearly verified through the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
Comment 20
Page 5/6 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Overview of the proposals included in this NPA
Page 6 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - ELA 1
Page 7 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - ELA 2
Page 26/27 B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart B - 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph".
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that - probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter -
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in ...". The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Comment 21
Page 4 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Introduction
Page 12 - A. Explanatory Note - V. Regulatory Impact Assessment - 1.
Purpose and intended effect
Page 14 - A. Explanatory Note - V. Regulatory Impact Assessment - 4.
Impacts (Economics)
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
Page 41 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
for the the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
mean.
Regarding Initial Airworthiness the proposal is to use a similar mechanism like
done in USA when introducing the LSA category. There a limited timeframe
was available, where each aircraft owner had the possibility by simple
paperwork to get his/her aircraft certified as "experimental" LSA with certain
operational limitations to the new category. There was no new checking of
compliance or such, the individual aircraft was accepted on the basis of its
existing operational experience. For most aircraft owners this is fully sufficient.
Secondly, it is proposed to also offer for factory produced Annex II aircraft
already in service to enhance the scope of usability by showing compliance on
the basis of the certification code the aircraft is already certified to, and
upgrading it through the manufacturing company to the ELA category, without
operational limitations. An example would be that an Ultralight, currently
certified under LTF-UL (Germany), or Section S (UK) or UL-2 (Czech) or other
equivalent codes become an LSA aircraft, still following original certification
code, but with enhanced takeoff mass.
This comment is identical to the set of comments produced by Flight Design
GMBH. The reader is kindly requested to refer to the replies produced for these
comments.
Last point:
If the manufacturer of an aircraft originally classified in Annex II wishes to
increase the Maximum Take-Off Mass of the design beyond the limit of Annex
II, it will have to comply with the requirements applicable to ELA, including
design and production requirements.
comment 239 comment by: Ronald MEYER
General comment
The General Aviation crisis - with the solitary exception of the ultralights in the
frame of Annex II - is resulting from the increasing regulatory harassment and
increasing costs (which result directly from over-regulation). These increased
regulations are officially justified by a desire of increasing flight safety in this
leisure activity, but prove to have no practical effect - at least on safety -
except
decreasing the number of pilots,
decreasing the number of hours flown by pilots as a direct effect of the
escalating costs,
obstructing technical progress as a direct effect of the escalating costs
for certifying parts and products, which induces the attitude to use and
sell a product - once certified - as long, as possible,
all this even decreasing safety!
I welcome this initiative, which is likely to allow many Europeans pilots to
benefit from the light regulatory frame light aviation is enjoying in many
countries. The wish for an LSA equivalent in EU is a direct result of the wish for
greater operational possibilities, which have become a simple reality because
of the performances of modern ultralights. Realising these greater operational
possibilities within the framework of present Annex II (which is technically
Page 42 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
absolutely possible) creates complex and extremely expensive aircrafts - the
contrary of the simple and affordable aircrafts, ultralights wanted to be in the
beginning. US-LSA shows a very reasonable way out of this situation.
To guarantee the success of this new regulation, I think that EASA showed
pusillanimity in its approach of the future certification process, particularly
when it comes to the ELA1 class, which is intended to encompass the greatest
possible number of leisure aircraft.
It is only by setting up a self certification by the manufacturer that the costs of
this process could be drastically reduced and thus support the creativity and
the competition essential to the development of attracting leisure aviation.
Comparing a self declaration system to a system based on Qualified Entities
(QE), I am convinced that
TC/QE-System is far more expensive
TC/QE-System only provides a fictitious improvement of security
FAA-LSA is taking the security aspect into account,
1. by stipulating technically simple and good-natured aircrafts, and
2. by distinguishing two different cases of security/protection level
needed:
S-LSA, for a serial production;
E-LSA, for aircraft, built as an „Experimental".
Instead of setting up a heavy process of control involving many third parties
(for valuable consideration), the Agency could have been satisfied with a
survey control and probing system, reserving it's right to control the
manufacturers and to verify their declarations.
Thus, I estimate that the proposals for a new ELA1/ELA2 category - even if
it will bring a certain relief for the manufacturers of certified aircrafts - will be
insufficient to stop the decline of the General Aviation outside Annex II.
This is more than certain when reviewing the currently published proposals for
licensing and maintenance procedures, which are practically as heavy as the
currently applicable regulations. The promised innovation seems to be nothing
else but a slightly modified reproduction of the stillborn child VLA, which has
never had any positive effect on recreational aviation. So, I express my large
disappointment about the way those promising new rules are developed.
General conclusion:
The proposed changes in the present NPA were not what the light aviation
community asked for. The proposed amendments represent rather an
attempt to reanimate the conventional light aviation by obsolete methods than
an up-to-date concept, successfully integrating the modern Ultralights in the
European regulatory frame work. There is a serious risk, that the successful
light aviation, represented by the modern Ultralights, will be killed by the
present proposals.
The future of Annex II must not be related with the introduction of ELA, the
way, it is proposed now. Within the Annex II, a lot of pilots fly, a lot of
manufacturers work and a lot of employees earn a living. The Annex II has to
Page 43 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
be protected until ELA has proved that it can be as successful as the Annex II
area. In such circumstances I express firmly my clear and determined choice
that aircraft below 450kg MTOW (472,5Kg with recovery parachute) should
remain outside of the scope of EASA, in Annex II. I am very satisfied with the
current situation and have no wish to see it change.
Concerning the aspect of the subclass LSA, whose purpose - inter alia - is to
facilitate the work of the European manufacturers already exporting in the
USA, I am astonished about the technical criteria proposed in the NPA. The
American LSA class is strictly limited to a minimum stall speed without flaps of
45 kts and to 120 kts maximum full power level speed. Also prohibited is the
use of variable pitch propellers and retractable gears. If exonerating ELA 1 of
these limitations, which justify the lightened regulation granted to this new
class of aircraft by the FAA, the Agency does not accomplish this goal.
Therefore, I hereby clearly claim to adopt the original definition of the FAA-LSA
category without reservation.
Justification:
US-LSA has well been considered and created with a good know-how. It
is principally useful.
It is better to accept a limitation of technical complexity, than a
limitation of operational use of the aircrafts.
Accepting a limitation of technical complexity is the best argument for
staying out of complex (over)regulation.
Technical complexity is expensive.
Many commentators expressed the view that the NPA was not achieving what
they wanted, i.e. a certification comparable to what exists in the USA (the
Light Sport Aircraft rule), which does not include organisation approvals or
significant involvement of the FAA. The Agency recognises that the choice to
remain within the framework of Regulation 216/2008 leads only to
simplifications of the existing certification process. This has advantages such as
the creation of a European Light Aircraft (ELA) process (with two sub-processes
ELA1 and ELA2) including:
the issue of Type Certificates or Restricted Type Certificates as
appropriate with simplified or adapted requirements for organisations
approvals, and
the creation of an approach by which not all parts need a Form 1, and
the creation of a new Certification Specification (CS) called CS-LSA
(Light Sport Aeroplanes) based on ASTM F2245, and proposing
extension of the scope of CS-VLA and CS-22,
the allocation of certification tasks to qualified entities in addition to
National Authorities.
In addition, Regulation 216/2008 allows for the creation of a system of
standard changes and repairs for all non-complex aircraft.
However, in this context all legal approvals remain issued by the Agency under
its fees and charges system. This fees and charges system is considered by
stakeholders as being a major hindrance to certification of new aircraft or to
certification of changes or repairs to existing aircraft. The fees and charges
regulation is adopted by the Commission. .The applicant pays the fees to
EASA. The contracts between EASA and NAA or qualified entities when they are
Page 44 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
allocated tasks by EASA contain the financial arrangements between EASA and
NAA or QE. Modifying this framework necessitates an in-depth further study.
The Agency will issue an Opinion around December 2010 for the modification
of Regulation 1702/2003 to implement the simplifications outlined above. Such
an Opinion could be adopted by the Commission in 2011 allowing applicants to
benefit of such simplifications for applications received shortly afterwards.
Designers of existing aircraft complying with the ELA criteria will also be able
to make use on a voluntary basis of the relevant provisions of Part-21.
However, the Agency accepts that what this NPA proposes is alleviating
process for classical light aviation and proposing a more proportionate process
for LSA as today they would have to be certified using CS-VLA or CS-23 and
would need full POA and APDOA.
Separate from the current process and having noted the reservations of some
members of the MDM.032 group, the Agency will propose a new NPA or NPAs
to modify Regulation 216/2008 to propose deregulation of a certain segment of
light aviation. The objectives of such an NPA may be summed up as follows:
1. Propose the necessary modifications to the Basic Regulation and EASA
Implementing Rules to achieve an adapted level of regulation for ELA1 for
airworthiness, maintenance, operations and licensing.
2. Harmonise the above with other authorities.
3. Improve the approach to orphan aircraft.
4. Review the essential requirements for airworthiness to avoid any unwanted
effects on small aircraft.
5. Propose that a Type Certificate for engine and propellers is not needed for
some ELA aircraft.
6. Ensure that self-sustained powered sailplanes equipped with a turbojet are
non-complex aircraft.
This proposal to modify the Basic Regulation will follow the rulemaking process,
therefore allowing full consultation of stakeholders and will be supported by a
study. The corresponding rulemaking task could start in 3rd quarter of 2010
with an Opinion issued in early 2013.
The Agency wishes to point out that in its Opinion scheduled for
December2010 it will not propose any modifications to Annex II. If the
manufacturer of an aircraft originally classified in Annex II wishes to increase
the Maximum Take-Off Mass of the design beyond the limit of Annex II, it will
have to comply with the requirements applicable to ELA, including design and
production requirements.
comment 254 comment by: Gorden WIEGELS
response Noted
No comment placed here.
comment 270 comment by: Klaus Erger
1. The proposed changes in the present NPA were not what the light aviation
community asked for. We plead for a stand-alone European LSA category,
compatible with LSA category in the United States. The proposed amendments
represent more an attempt at resuscitation of the conventional light aviation
than of a successful integration of the modern Ultralights in the European
regulatory frame work. There is a serious risk that the successful light aviation
(represented by the modern Ultralights) will be killed by the present proposals.
2. The withdrawal of Annex II must not be related with the introduction of ELA.
Page 45 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Within the Annex II a lot of pilots fly, a lot of manufacturers work and a lot of
employees earn a living. The Annex II has to be protected until ELA has
prooved that it can be as successful as the Annex II area.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 283 comment by: Drive & Fly Luftfahrt GmbH
Overview
response Noted
Drive and Fly works with dyn'aero for many years. You will find the compagny
website link opposite : http://www.drive-and-fly.de/
Given that Dynaero is a potential applicant for the certification ELA1 and that
we are the official dealer of the Dyn'Aero aircrafts in Germany, we believe it is
important to comment on the NPA 2008/07 as long as this possibility is offered
to us.
Drive and Fly will comment the sections :
- "A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - AMC and GM to be produced or modified", and
- "B. Draft Rules - II. New Certification Specifications for Light Sport
Aeroplanes "
but supports all other points.
The agency thanks the commentator for their support.
Separate responses will be provided to the detailed comments.
comment 287 comment by: Karg
response Noted
1. The proposed changes in the present NPA were not what the light aviation
community asked for. We plead for a stand-aloneEuropeanLSA
category,compatible with LSA categoryin the United States. The proposed
amendments represent more an attempt at resuscitation of the conventional
light aviation than of a successful integration of the modern Ultralights in the
European regulatory frame work. There is a serious risk that the successful
light aviation, represented by the modern Ultralights, will be killed by the
present proposals.
2. The withdrawal of Annex II must not be related with the introduction of ELA.
Within the Annex II a lot of pilots fly, a lot of manufacturers work and a lot of
employees earn a living. The Annex II has to be protected until ELA has
proofed that it can be as successful as the Annex II area.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 308 comment by: TECNAM
1. According FAA and EAA, the amateur built aircraft which have not any
design or manufacturing oversight have an excellent safety record in the US.
Page 46 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Further more design and manufacturing errors are less than with certified
aircrafts. Maintenance and pilot errors (first flights) are more. In 3 years LSA
in the US only one design issue did come up and that was with an type
certified aircraft.
That clearly proofs that aircrafts with design and manufacturing oversight do
not delivery any safety benefit. Statistics show even the opposite. The reason
can be that traditional standards (Part 21,22,23,25) are static and not
dynamically developing to safety needs like ASTM 2245,2279 and others.
2. The proposed changes in the present NPA were not what the light aviation
community asked for. We plead for a stand-alone European LSA category,
compatible with LSA category in the United States. The proposed amendments
represent more an attempt at resuscitation of the conventional general
aviation than of a successful integration of the modern (Ultra)lights in the
European regulatory frame work. There is a serious risk that the world leading
European light aviation industry (represented by the modern Advanced
Ultralights) will be destroyed totally by the present proposals.
3. The withdrawal of Annex II must not be related with the introduction of ELA.
Within the Annex II a lot of pilots fly, a lot of manufacturers work and a lot of
employees earn a living. The Annex II has to be protected until ELA has proved
that it can be as successful as the Annex II area.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 331 comment by: Luftfahrt-Bundesamt
It is very much welcomed, EASA is taking up the criticism of stakeholders,
introducing forms of relief within the current rules and regulations for European
general / sports aviation. Almost 5 years after EASA has been set up, it is
highest time to do so.
Unfortunately, only some parts of the European regulations, that, in a broader
sense, do not fit the needs of general / sports aviation, are proposed to be
altered - an overall view is just briefly touched, not investigated in more depth.
That is very regrettable. To draw a comparison: It is not useful, to take care
for the cold of a patient, but not to provide for his broken leg.
The fees and charges regulation e.g., is a serious drawback for individual
designers and small companies. Fees and charges have been raised
dramatically in June 2007, cancellation of applications or postponement since
June 2007 are a consequence of inappropriate high fees and charges. This
cannot be justified by "fundamentals" or "political will" - potential taxpayers
should get the chance to pay taxes after getting into the business, not to be
stalled financially just at the beginning of their activities.
In this context, wishes expressed by individual countries and Aviation
authorities to dissolve Annex II of the basic regulation, are highly questionable.
Thereby, a still thriving part of aviation activities and aviation industry would
be submitted to uniform, but once again foreseeable not suitable regulations,
administered by an agency, that is once again not suitably prepared to deal
with such kind of aviation. Comprising a major part of sports aviation into their
responsibility, when EASA was set up, recognized now as a mistake, should be
avoided for a second time.
(Page 14 of the NPA: "It should be noted that the development of certain
activities such as microlights and sailplanes in some countries (e.g. France,
Page 47 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Czech Republic, and Germany) has been closely linked to the less stringent
regulation of the activity in those countries.")
Usual notice, replied on such comment, „the NPA does not deal with Annex II,
but with Part 21", may be legally correct, but is not regarded to be reasonable
in this context. Successful aviation administration should deal with all relevant
aspects of their rules and their work, impacting applicants. It is necessary to
look at it as a whole and not to get lost in details. The comment response
document for this NPA supplies a good chance to sharpen the view of
stakeholders and administrators for coherences before amending regulations
and the scope of responsibilities. This is the goal of the general comment you
are just reading.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 350 comment by: British Gliding Association
response Noted
This is the response of the British Gliding Association
For further detail contact
Pete Stratten
Chief Executive
British Gliding Association
00 44 116 2531051
comment 356 comment by: British Gliding Association
response Noted
Implementation and timescale
This is a wide area of issues including:
● Are we expected to continue the current laborious, bureaucratic and
expensive applications under Part M, for the Sept 2009 deadline, when
we are now aware that the ELA approach is planned and committed.
How, and when in the future will ELA be mounted? Surely there is a
case for further delaying the full compliance date with Part M for ELA
eligible aircraft, beyond Sept 2009 to liberalise and accommodate this
issue?
● How will 'ELA eligible' sport aircraft, currently being forced to comply
with the highly restrictive measures of Part 21 and Part M be liberalised
into the ELA process. Can we assume that design to a European code
such as CS-VLA or CS-22 ( rather than 'industry standards) does not
preclude the operation and maintenance of an airframe under the more
liberal regime of ELA?
The Agency has issued an Opinion that alleviates Part-M for general aviation
Page 48 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
and proposes an opt-out possibility until September 2009.
Designers of aircraft complying with the ELA criteria will be able to make use
on a voluntary basis of the relevant provisions of Part-21 when adopted by the
legislator.
comment 360 comment by: O. Reinhardt / Flightdesign
response Noted
General comment
1. According FAA and EAA, the amateur built aircraft which have not
any design or manufacturing oversight have an excellent safety record
in the US. Design errors are less often reasons for accidents than with
certified aircrafts. Maintenance mistakes and pilot errors (mainly during
first flights) are more often reason for accidents of amateur built
aircraft. In 3 years experience of LSA in USA only one design issue did
cause an accident with an aircraft holding also a standard type
certificate.
These are hard statistic data that clearly proofs that aircrafts with
design and manufacturing oversight do not automatically have any
safety benefit. Statistics show even the opposite. One reason is
considered to be that traditional standards (Part 21,22,23,25) are static
and not dynamically developing to safety needs like ASTM F2245, F2279
and others do. Another reason is considered that with the significantly
enlarged liability when doing self declaration, most companies are out
of their own interest much more careful.
2. The proposed changes in the present NPA are not what the light
aviation community asked for. We plead for a standalone
European LSA category, compatible with LSA category in the
United States. The proposed amendments represent more an attempt
at resuscitation of the conventional general aviation than of a successful
integration of the modern (Ultra)lights in the European regulatory frame
work. There is a serious risk that the world leading European light
aviation industry (represented by the modern Advanced Ultralights) will
be destroyed totally by the present proposals.
3. The withdrawal of Annex II must not be related with the introduction
of ELA. Within the Annex II a lot of pilots fly, a lot of manufacturers
work and a lot of employees earn a living. The Annex II has to be
protected at least until ELA has prooved that it can be as successful as
the Annex II area.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 368 comment by: ROTAX
Comments to NPA 2008-07 ELA process and others
The following text is edited in a way that the comments can be implemented
when using the EASA Comment Response tool.
The headlines state the page and the header that is in the CRT in the right
column mentioned, so the exact position to hook the comment up to.
Page 49 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
The tool offers the possibility to link one comment to several paragraphs - so
where it is mentioned that the old comment is applicable, just link the
paragraph to the old comment.
General comment
1. According FAA and EAA, the amateur built aircraft which have not
any design or manufacturing oversight have an excellent safety record
in the US. Further more design and manufacturing errors are less than
with certified aircrafts. Maintenance and pilot errors (first flights) are
more. In 3 years LSA in the US only one design issue did come up and
that was with an type certified aircraft.
That clearly proofs that aircrafts with design and manufacturing oversight do
not delivery any safety benefit. Statistics show even the opposite. The reason
can be that traditional requirements (Part 21,22,23,25) are static and not
dynamically developing to safety needs like ASTM 2245,2279 and others.
2. The proposed changes in the present NPA were not what the light
aviation community asked for. We plead for a stand-aloneEuropeanLSA
category,compatible with LSA categoryin the United States. The
proposed amendments represent more an attempt at resuscitation of
the conventional general aviation than of a successful integration of the
modern (Ultra)lights in the European regulatory frame work. There is a
serious risk that the world leading European light aviation industry
(represented by the modern Advanced Ultralights) will be destroyed
totally by the present proposals.
3. The withdrawal of Annex II must not be related with the introduction
of ELA. Within the Annex II a lot of pilots fly, a lot of manufacturers
work and a lot of employees earn a living. The Annex II has to be
protected until ELA has prooved that it can be as successful as the
Annex II area.
Comment 1
Page 8 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - Qualified Entities
negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Proposal 1: QE´s shall also be appointed for the Auditing work to obtain DOA
and POA that allows design and production work under ELA 1. This is fully in
line with basic regulation 216/2008 Chapter II Section I Article 20 2(a).
In addition to this, it must be ensured that a common level is achieved for
applicants throughout all the EASA member states. This is mostly the issue
from side of the QE´s, when they are approved and supervised by the
Authority solely. Involvement of the NAA´s because of varying capabilities in
practice shows that this is not the case and this will lead to different safety
levels and unfair competition. This problem can be overcome by harmonization
of the NAAs under the supervision of EASA.
Comment 2
Page 50 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Page 9 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - Design and Production Organization Approvals
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting equivalent approvals and
qualifications of companies.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Comment 3
Page 9 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - Design and Production Organisation Approvals
Negative, the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
As is commonly known and transparent through their individual approvals, the
existing NAA´s have a sometimes significantly different qualification and
capability level, due to whatever reason. As the NPA is formulated, it is up to
the NAA of the country, where the company is based, to select, whether they
will deal with the combined DOA/POA approval themselves, or whether they
delegate their part to the Agency. The reason for this decision is completely
left to the NAA. As by widely know experience NAA's have different levels, this
will lead to unacceptable different level of safty and unfair competition.
Proposal: It must be clear from the start that combined DOA/POA approvals
are dealt with always by the Agency. If this is not in line with the basic
regulation, a general agreement between Agency and NAA´s must be achieved
when issuing these changes, that NAA´s accept combined DOA/POA
applications to be dealt through the agency on the basis of basic regulation
20(2)b(ii).
Comment 4
Page 10 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - Limiting the number of parts that need a Form 1 -
Question 1
Answer to Question:
It is the opinion of this stakeholder, that it is appropriate to limit the possibility
to release parts without a Form 1 as described in the NPA to aircraft that are
used for non-commercial purposes. However, for all commercial usage it is
possible to install parts without explicit Form 1 that come with a release
certificate from the aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released
parts must not have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft
manufacturer, but they must undergo the same quality inspection process that
this specific part undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft
Page 51 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
manufacturer upon initial installation.
Comment 5
Page 10 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - Creation of a Certification Specification for Light
Sport Aeroplanes
Comment 2 valid also here.
Comment 6
Page 10 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - Creation of a Certification Specification for Light
Sport Aeroplanes
The slight differences have a noticeable effect to the product:
- A limitation do Day VFR only is considered not acceptable, as the
standard explicitly provides requirements for night VFR (already now)
and IFR (upcoming right now) operation.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not
mean, that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or
IFR. This still requires the proper license with endorsement. Also,
requirements to equipment for operation at night and under IFR are
also not overruled. So allowing principally the usage of the aircraft in
this conditions, under the limitations of the ELA concept, does not pose
a factual reduction in level of safety. This can be clearly verified through
the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
- It is in the very nature of the ASTM standard, to evolve, in order to
further raise the level of safety and keep the requirements always up to
date. For FAA registered LSA it is a must, after a certain transition time,
for the applicant to upgrade his design in line with newer standards. In
the implementation proposed by EASA, an applicant may choose to stay
on the lower level, selling an aircraft of the same category at a lower
level of qualification, whilst others are forced to update, as they already
have to do when they sell to FAA world.
Comment 7
Page 22 A. EXPLANATORY NOTE - Attachment 2 - Who does what -
Initial and Continued Airworthiness - ELA 1 - Organisational Approval
Comments 1 and 2 apply here as well - link same comment to this position.
Comment 8
Page 22 A. EXPLANATORY NOTE - Attachment 2 - Who does what -
Initial and Continued Airworthiness - ELA 1 - Accredition and
Surveillance
No Comment
Comment 9
Page 26/27 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart B - 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Comment 2 also valid here
Page 52 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Comment 10
Page 26/27 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart B - 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart J.
Comment 11
Page 30 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart G - 21A.139 Quality System
Comment 2 also valid here
Comment 12
Page 30 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart G - 21A.139 Quality System
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart J.
Comment 13
Page 30 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart K - 21A.307 Release of parts and appliances for installation
Enhance (c) so that for all commercial usage it is possible to install parts
without explicit Form 1 only when they come with a release certificate from the
aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released parts must not
have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft manufacturer, but they
must undergo the same quality inspection process that this specific part
undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft manufacturer upon
initial installation.
Comment 14
Page 31/32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart L - Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for
Design and Production of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and
(c) - 21A.359 Design Assurance System
Comment 2 also valid here
Comment 15
Page 31/32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart L - Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for
Design and Production of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and
(c) - 21A.359 Design Assurance System
Page 53 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart L.
Comment 16
Page 32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart L - Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for
Design and Production of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and
(c) - 21A.361 Production Organisational Review
Comment 2 also applies here
Comment 17
Page 32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart L - Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for
Design and Production of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and
(c) - 21A.361 Production Organisational Review
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart L.
Comment 18
Page 42 - B. Draft Rules - II. New Certification Specifications for Light
Sport Aeroplanes - Subpart A - General - LSA 3 Aeroplane categories
Comment 2 also applies here
Comment 19
Page 42 - B. Draft Rules - II. New Certification Specifications for Light
Sport Aeroplanes - Subpart A - General - LSA 3 Aeroplane categories
Negative. A limitation to VFR day is considered as not acceptable, as the
standard offers well suitable standards also for VFR night operation and soon
IFR operation. There is no real reason visible why this can not be accepted as
well in EASA world, like in FAA world.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not mean,
that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or IFR. This still
requires the proper license with endorsement. Also, requirements to equipment
for operation at night and under IFR are also not overruled. So allowing
principally the usage of the aircraft in this conditions, under the limitations of
the ELA concept, does not pose a factual reduction in level of safety. This can
be clearly verified through the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
Comment 20
Page 5/6 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Overview of the proposals included in this NPA
Page 54 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Page 6 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - ELA 1
Page 7 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - ELA 2
Page 26/27 B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart B - 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph".
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that - probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter -
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in ...". The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Comment 21
Page 4 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Introduction
Page 12 - A. Explanatory Note - V. Regulatory Impact Assessment - 1.
Purpose and intended effect
Page 14 - A. Explanatory Note - V. Regulatory Impact Assessment - 4.
Impacts (Economics)
Rotax welcomes every activity to harmonize the technical requirements on an
EU level. Equal requirements/regulations within all EASA member states will
grow the sport aircraft/simple aircraft market and will help to focus on new
developments and additional safety features.
Equally important is the harmonization of technical requirements on an
international level, every European company working in the sport
aircraft/simple aircraft has to work on an international level to gain the critical
mass for new developments and a working quality assurance system. In this
aspect, we see the role of EASA to be the strong counterpart towards FAA, e.g.
for validations of products.
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
for the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
mean.
Regarding Initial Airworthiness the proposal is to use a similar mechanism like
done in USA when introducing the LSA category. There a limited timeframe
was available, where each aircraft owner had the possibility by simple
paperwork to get his/her aircraft certified as "experimental" LSA with certain
Page 55 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
operational limitations to the new category. There was no new checking of
compliance or such, the individual aircraft was accepted on the basis of its
existing operational experience. For most aircraft owners this is fully sufficient.
Secondly, it is proposed to also offer for factory produced Annex II aircraft
already in service to enhance the scope of usability by showing compliance on
the basis of the certification code the aircraft is already certified to, and
upgrading it through the manufacturing company to the ELA category, without
operational limitations. An example would be that an Ultralight, currently
certified under LTF-UL (Germany), or Section S (UK) or UL-2 (Czech) or other
equivalent codes become an LSA aircraft, still following original certification
code, but with enhanced takeoff mass.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach. The
commenst are very similar to comments expressed by Flight Design: please
look athe those comments for the response
comment 377 comment by: Thomas Wendt
response Noted
1. The proposed changes in the present NPA were not what the light
aviation community asked for. We plead for a stand-alone European LSA
category,compatible with LSA category in the United States. The proposed
amendments represent more an attempt at resuscitation of the conventional
light aviation than of a successful integration of the modern Ultralights in
the European regulatory frame work. There is a serious risk that the
successful light aviation (represented by the modern Ultralights) will be
killed by the present proposals.
2. The withdrawal of Annex II must not be related with the introduction of
ELA. Within the Annex II a lot of pilots fly, a lot of manufacturers work and
a lot of employees earn a living. The Annex II has to be protected until ELA
has prooved that it can be as successful as the Annex II area.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 402 comment by: TECNAM
1. According FAA and EAA, the amateur built aircraft which have not any
design or manufacturing oversight have an excellent safety record in the US.
Further more design and manufacturing errors are less than with certified
aircrafts. Maintenance and pilot errors (first flights) are more. In 3 years LSA
in the US only one design issue did come up and that was with an type
certified aircraft.
That clearly proofs that aircrafts with design and manufacturing oversight do
not delivery any safety benefit. Statistics show even the opposite. The reason
can be that traditional standards (Part 21,22,23,25) are static and not
dynamically developing to safety needs like ASTM 2245,2279 and others.
2. The proposed changes in the present NPA were not what the light aviation
community asked for. We plead for a stand-alone European LSA category,
compatible with LSA category in the United States. The proposed amendments
represent more an attempt at resuscitation of the conventional general
aviation than of a successful integration of the modern (Ultra)lights in the
European regulatory frame work. There is a serious risk that the world leading
Page 56 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
European light aviation industry (represented by the modern Advanced
Ultralights) will be destroyed totally by the present proposals.
3. The withdrawal of Annex II must not be related with the introduction of ELA.
Within the Annex II a lot of pilots fly, a lot of manufacturers work and a lot of
employees earn a living. The Annex II has to be protected until ELA has proved
that it can be as successful as the Annex II area
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 410 comment by: JIHLAVAN airplanes s.r.o.
Legend: JA represents JIHLAVAN airplanes, s.r.o.
JA thinks, the same way as LAA ČR, that proposed changes in the present NPA
were not what the light aviation community asked for. We asked for a standalone
European LSA category (covering all basic four areas of aviation activity -
Initial airworthiness, Maintenance, Licensing and Operations), compatible with
LSA category in the United States. The proposed amendments represent more
an attempt at resuscitation of the conventional light aviation than of a
successful integration of the light sport aircraft with MTOM 600kg (based on
modern micro lights) in the European regulatory frame work. There is a serious
risk that the successful light aviation (represented by the modern micro lights)
will be killed by the present proposals.
At the same time the Annex II must be protected until this new proposed
system will prove that it can be as successful as the Annex II system. Within
the Annex II a lot of pilots fly, a lot of manufacturers work and a lot of
employees earn living. The possible withdrawal of Annex II must not be related
with the introduction of ELA system.
JA supports LAA ČR that technical specifications could work, but we still think
that it would be better to have separate stand alone European LSA category
which could solve all specific requirements of this category at one place.
The new system which EASA is proposing is quite complicated and will strongly
depend on following aspects:
1- EASA fees and charges - if they will stay as they are it will ruin small
companies who are now producing LSA for USA - Proposal - use the financing
based on small fee from air tickets - the same as is used in the USA.
2- It is not clear how the system of appointing Qualified Entities will work and
how much it will cost to run such system. Also the competence between EASA
and NAA concerning POA and combined DOA/POA is unclear.
3- Ability of EASA to respond on time - we feel that for light aviation the
flexibility of current system is not enough.
4- Functionality of the whole system depends also on results of proposals for
Maintenance, Licensing, OPS etc, on this time it is not clear that the whole
system will work for light aviation.
5- Very important aspect is that it is not clear how will EASA handle many
applications for LSA certification on day one of validity of new rule, in the same
Page 57 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
time the QE should be ready as well. It would be appropriate to introduce some
grandfather rules for existing aircraft.
6-This new system is designed for company manufactured aircraft only. How
would be solved homebuilt from company manufactured kit of aircraft which
will receive Type Certificate based on ELA process?
Proposal
We propose to create stand alone European LSA category with MTOM 600kg
with common European technical requirements based on ASTM F2245, with
European Type Certificate. The rules will be common European but
implemented on national level by accredited national sporting organizations
and in the countries where such organizations do not exist by relevant NAA.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 411 comment by: CAA CZ
The purpose of this NPA as presented is, according to our understanding, to
change the system of certification and initial airworthiness of small aircraft.
However, the presented document includes only the requirements (amendment
of the regulation). The relevant AMC and GM documents, as stated, will be
developed later on. Taking this into account, the CAA CZ finds it difficult to
present comments to the new concept without the necessary AMC and GM
documents available. In our opinion, the presentation of both the requirements
and associated AMC and GM material during the single NPA process is a
prerequisite for a really comprehensive policy.
response Partially accepted
The Agency agrees that AMC and GM are needed to ensure the success of the
concept. These AMC and GM will be developed after this CRD is published.
comment 437 comment by: Light Aircraft Association UK
In broad terms, the LAA agrees with the proposals to create an ELA process for
factory-built light aircraft that would otherwise require the full EASA type
approval process. This represents a significant alleviation to the current
requirements, although it does not go as far as adopting the full US LSA
system.
EASA presentations given during this consultation period (briefing in Prague
25/4/08 and at the Part-M workshop 3/7/08) indicated that ‘industry
standards' would be acceptable means of compliance as well as CSs. The NPA
doesn't discuss this possibility.
It's not clear from this NPA what the position is with regards the requirement
(or otherwise) for fitting certified engines, propellers and instruments to ELA
aircraft. The cost of manufacturing and owning a 1000kg aircraft with a
certified engine, propeller and instruments would be significantly greater than
a 1000kg aircraft with an uncertified engine, propeller and instruments.
Airworthiness codes such as CS-VLA do not specifically call up a certified
engine, for instance: it merely requires that the engine be approved to CS-22
subpart H. Would ELA aircraft issued with CoAs be required to fit certified
equipment?
Page 58 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
It is important to read these proposals with an eye on what might be to come
for aircraft currently residing in Annex II. This is likely to become the basis for
aircraft such as factory-built microlights.
If these proposals are compared with the prevailing microlight regulations in
the UK (arguably the most regulated microlight regime currently in Europe),
then they represent a significant increase in regulatory and financial burden on
the manufacturers, maintainers and operators if these rules were to be applied
to them. As and when microlights are taken out of Annex II, it will be
imperative to formulate a further set of derogations from Part 21 and Part M to
allow these aircraft to continue to operate in a way commensurate with the low
risk that they represent to both the operator and 3rd parties.
The full impact of this NPA cannot be assessed until the issue of the Operations
NPA, which will help complete the picture of how the whole ELA system will
work.
response Partially accepted
The NPA does not discuss the use of other airworthines codes than the
published CS because it is a possibility that exists already in Part-21: please
refer to Part-21.17.
It has become increasingly clearer that the requirement for engine and
propellers to be type certificated (as required by Article 5 of the Basic
Regulation) may be a show stopper (Fees and Charges; organisation approvals
for non aviation manufacturers) for LSA, powered sailplanes, ELA1 airships and
possibly VLA. The proposal would be to issue restricted type certificates in such
cases: this will be of no consequences for such aircraft as the draft operational
rules envisage that the only limitations for the use of an aircraft are those
included in its data sheet. Of course, the possibility to issue type certificates
would remain open keeping in mind that the demonstration of capability for
engine and propellers in such aircraft would be a certification plan.
If the manufacturer of an aircraft originally classified in Annex II wishes to
increase the Maximum Take-Off Mass of the design beyond the limit of Annex
II, it will have to comply with the requirements applicable to ELA, including
design and production requirements.
The NPA for OPS has been published in January 2009 and the CRD is planned
between mid October 2010 and January 2011.
comment 443 comment by: P&M Aviation
Whilst we welcome the current proposals as a step forwards at the present
time they leave more questions than answers.
As a UK manufacturer of Weight Shift Aircraft, currently classed as Microlight
Aircraft in the UK, we are unsure exactly how much of the proposals apply to
us. Yes we do sell LSAs in the USA although at the present time the weight
limits meet UK standards. We also import aircraft from Europe and for UK
operation have to comply with the UK CAA Airworthiness Requirements and
Standards. What is happening to Annex II? Assuming Annex II stays we will be
in the unusual position where a UK micolight will be built to a more stringent
set of airworthiness requirements than a heavier Easa approved aircraft. If the
LSA proposals are to be adopted then some additional provisions need to be
Page 59 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
implemented to cover Annex II microlights, this will also need to include all
aspects of Manufacturing and Quality Control to ensure that the same
standards are applied throughout Europe. For the Quality and Manufacturing
controls of such Annex II aircraft then we would suggest adopting the same
standards as required for the USA, which is the ASTM Self Declaration
standards.A more sensible proposal would be to adopt the ASTM LSA
requirements for all aircraft upto 600 or 750kg for both the design and
manufacturing. Note that when proposing the ASTM Standard F2245 this only
allows for fixed wing aircraft and therefore all such references to this standard
needs to include reference to F2317 or an amended version of.
If Annex II stays as is, then Europe will remain divided for a large number of
aircraft and the opening comments in the introduction will still apply. Microlight
aircraft will still flourish in Europe but heavier aircraft will slowly disappear, and
some of the European Manufacturers will still end up with two products one for
the USA and one for Europe, which could ultimately lead the manufacturer to
move to the USA or some other country of convenience.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 445 comment by: Peter VON BURG
response Noted
We agree with the Agency that a better regulation, especially for initial
airworthiness is required. No other field in the technical world has shown such
a slow technical progress in the last 30 years. The technology in engines and
aircrafts in General Aviation has remained more or less the same since the
1970, not to compare with automotive or other, less regulated industries.
Thus the proposed changements in the present NPA are more than necessary
and are a step into the right direction.
However, based on the experience with Ultralight aircrafts we feel that the
changements for the lowest category will show the same impact as the
introduction of CS-VLA, almost not visible. Thus we think a regulation similar
with US LSA is required within ELA1.
A risk based approach would demonstrate, that for small, no complex aircrafts
the risk related with initial airworthiness is small compared to human factors,
especially there are only negligible risks for innocent third parties.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 447 comment by: Rybar Jirka
Domnívám se, že změny navrhované v tomto NPA nejsou v souladu s tím, co
potřebujeme a co jsme požadovali. Chtěli jsme samostatnou kategorii evropské
LSA (pokrývající všechny čtyři základní oblasti leteckých aktivit - letovou
způsobilost, údržbu, licencování a provoz) odpovídající americké LSA. Navržené
dodatky mohou způsobit likvidaci velmi úspěšné oblasti lehkého letectví, kterou
představují moderní UL letadla.
Současně s tímto návrhem ale musí být chráněn současný Annex II, minimálně
do doby než se nový sytém ukáže jako funkční a stejně úspěšný jako systém
založený na Annexu II. Dnes je mnoho pilotů, výrobců a zaměstnanců
závislých na správné funkci systému Annex II. Jeho možné změny nemohou
Page 60 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
být svazovány s představením systému ELA.
Nedomnívám se, že představené technické specifikace mohou být funkční a
proto je dle mého názoru nutné vytvoření samostatně stojící evropské LSA,
která bude řešit všechny specifické problémy této kategorie z jednoho místa se
znalostí potřeb této kategorie letectví.
Navrhovaný systém považuji za velmi komplikovaný, protože zajištění jeho
funkčnosti je možné pouze při splnění všech dále uvedených podmínek:
- minimalizaci navržených poplatků EASA - jejich stávající výše je likvidační pro
lehké letectví.
- při stanovení mechanismu akreditace QE je nutné řešit požadavky na získání
QE již existujících evropských výrobců LSA, kteří již vyrábějí a stávající letadla
nějakým způsobem pod navržený systém převést bez vynakládání příliš
vysokých prostředků
- navrhovaný systém EASA musí být nastaven tak, aby byly funkční všechny
části systému současně - tzn. i Údržba, Provoz, Licencování atd.
- ne všechna letadla jsou vyráběna pouze továrně, musí být vyřešena i
amatérská stavba z továrně vyrobených stavebnic letadel, která budou mít
typový certifikát na základě procesu ELA
Proto navrhuji:
Vytvořit samostatně stojící evropskou kategorii LSA s jednotným Evropským
technickým předpisem založeným na ASTM F2245, s jednotným Typovým
certifikátem. Přepisy budou jednotné evropské ale implementované na národní
úrovni pověřenými národními sportovními organizacemi a v zemích, kde takové
organizace neexistují, příslušným NAA. Pouze tento systém zajistí možnost
letecké činnosti pro všechny bez vynakládání nadměrných finančních částek a
svoboda přístupu k létání tak nebude omezena pro tuto kategorii nadměrně
přísnými návrhy EASA.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 466 comment by: Tegelbeckers
response Noted
1. The proposed changes in the present NPA were not what the light aviation
community asked for. We plead for a stand-alone European LSA category,
compatible with LSA category in the United States. The proposed amendments
represent more an attempt at resuscitation of the conventional light aviation
than of a successful integration of the modern Ultralights in the European
regulatory frame work. There is a serious risk that the successful light aviation
(represented by the modern Ultralights) will be killed by the present proposals
2. The withdrawal of Annex II must not be related with the introduction of ELA.
Within the Annex II a lot of pilots fly, a lot of manufacturers work and a lot of
employees earn a living. The Annex II has to be protected until ELA has
prooved that it can be as successful as the Annex II area.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 483 comment by: light-wings Oliver Liedmann
1. The proposed changes in the present NPA were not what the light
aviation community asked for. We plead for a stand-aloneEuropeanLSA
category,compatible with LSA categoryin the United States. The
Page 61 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
proposed amendments represent more an attempt at resuscitation of
the conventional light aviation than of a successful integration of the
modern Ultralights in the European regulatory frame work. There is a
serious risk that the successful light aviation (represented by the
modern Ultralights) will be killed by the present proposals.
2. The withdrawal of Annex II must not be related with the introduction
of ELA. Within the Annex II a lot of pilots fly, a lot of manufacturers
work and a lot of employees earn a living. The Annex II has to be
protected until ELA has prooved that it can be as successful as the
Annex II area.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 500 comment by: aeroklaus
response Noted
The proposed changes in the present NPA were not what the light aviation
community asked for. We plead for a stand-alone European LSA
category, compatible with LSA category in the United States. The proposed
amendments represent more an attempt at resuscitation of the conventional
light aviation than of a successful integration of the modern Ultralights in the
European regulatory frame work. There is a serious risk that the successful
light aviation (represented by the modern Ultralights) will be killed by the
present proposals.
The withdrawal of Annex II must not be related with the introduction of ELA.
Within the Annex II a lot of pilots fly, a lot of manufacturers work and a lot of
employees earn a living. The Annex II has to be protected until ELA has
prooved that it can be as successful as the Annex II area.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 522 comment by: Austro Control GmbH
response Noted
This NPA is generally supported, however there is a need to alleviate the
certification for the lower end of aviation industry.
The NPA itself is very complex and contains a mixup of certification processes,
certification specifications and organisation approvals. Furthermore there are
too much organisations involved which need more coordination in-between.
A lot of existing regulations are not touched which would need specific
attention. In general, it seems that this NPA is not properly developed in the
overall concept
"Simple Aircraft need Simple Rules". This is not accomplished. The current
rules are too complex and will not be understood by the customer. There must
be an less complex and less bureaucratically approach to this subject.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 525 comment by: Austro Control GmbH
Page 62 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Comment:
Determination of the exact noise level is complex and time consuming and
expensive. The basic principle is that the ICAO noise level must be fulfilled.
This may be done by simpler methods if it is within the ICAO limits.
Proposal :
An ELA 1 aircraft does not need a noise certificate, it must be demonstrated
during certification that the ICAO noise level is fulfilled.
response Not accepted
Currently Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 refers to ICAO Annex 16 as essential
requirements. So, what the commentator proposes is not currently possible.
Concerns as expressed by the commentator could be addressed in NPA 2008-
15 process and in possible ensuing implementing rules.
Newly certificated aircraft according to the ELA 1 process will need to have a
noise certificate issued in accordance with ICAO Annex 16, where applicable.
comment 535 comment by: Austro Control GmbH
response Accepted
Subpart F
Comment
This Subpart is not valid for an combined approval.
Proposal
Change 21A.121 and add the following:
(c) This subpart is not eligible for Organisations with an Combined approval
under ...
Text will be modified as proposed
comment 539 comment by: Aero-Club of Switzerland
response Noted
The Aero-Club of Switzerland is of the opinion that the ELA process is the right
approach. There are, however, areas in which the complexity of the regulations
still is too high. The Organisation favours non-complex solutions for noncomplex
aircraft not engaged in commercial operations, especially for
aircraft normally not operated under IMC. Unfortunately what the Agency
proposes is still too complex.
In our view it is necessary to keep state-involvement at the lowest possible
level. The whole aviation community will enhance safety-thinking by a
maximum delegation of responsibility to the people who fly and who maintain
all the non-complex aircraft not engaged in commercial operations normally
not operated under IMC.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 540 comment by: John Tempest
Attachment #1
The concept of the Qualified Entity is introduced by this NPA and the revision to
the Basic Regulation, which is very welcome. However, it is essential that EASA
Page 63 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
publish an NPA for the implementing rules for a QE, which will cover the
approval process, together with the privileges granted to the QE.
A fundemental part of the QE's privileges should be to have all reports and
recommendations from them accepted without further showing by EASA and/or
the CA(s)/NAA as applicable. Oversight by EASA and CA(s)/NAA should be by
audit programmes only.
de Havilland Support suggestions for an implimenting rule for the Qualified
Entity is enclosed with this comment.
Proposal 1 and 2.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 6 on qualified entities.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 546 comment by: UK CAA
response Accepted
Only the first page is numbered. It would be helpful in compiling comments
if the remaining pages of the NPA were numbered.
Next time the NPA pages will be numbered.
comment 580 comment by: klaus M
response Noted
(General comments)
1. The proposed changes in the present NPA are not what the light aviation
community asked for.
We plead for a stand-alone European LSA category, compatible with LSA
category in the United States.
The proposed amendments represent more an attempt at resuscitation of the
conventional light aviation than of a successful integration of the modern
Ultralights in the European regulatory frame work.
There is a serious risk that the successful light aviation (represented by the
modern Ultralights) will be killed by the present proposals.
2. The withdrawal of Annex II must not be related with the introduction of ELA.
Within the Annex II a lot of pilots fly, a lot of manufacturers work and a lot of
employees earn a living. The Annex II has to be protected until ELA has
prooved that it can be as successful as the Annex II area.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 600 comment by: European Sailplane Manufacturers
Regarding the rulemaking activity MDM.032 which led to this NPA 2008-07
some observations from the side of the European sailplane manufacturers have
to be given here:
1. The process started under the headline "A concept for better regulation
in General Aviation".
Page 64 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
It has to be stated that unfortunately the result within NPA 2008-07
offers only slightly improved regulation as only some amendments to
Part 21 are been proposed instead of a general re-thinking about the
"quo vadis" for General Aviation in the sense of small aircraft.
2. EASA and MDM.032 started with the observation that General Aviation
in much less regulated environments has not demonstrated lower levels
of safety and that the danger from small aircraft in general are
negligible against third parties.
This observation is not new and has been made around the globe again
and again but it has not led to a proposal in NPA 2008-07 of really less
stringent regulation in General Aviation.
3. The European sailplane manufacturers are definitely one of the oldest
and most experienced organisations representing this sector of small
aviation.
Nevertheless repeated offers by the sailplane manufacturers to direct
participate in MDM.032 were not accepted by EASA rulemaking. Instead
it was deemed to have sufficient knowledge "on board" by multiple
representation from the microlight and aero-club sectors.
From the perspective of the sailplane manufacturers this is strange and
sadly the outcome of the work does really not represent the
experiences existing manufacturing companies working now some years
under EASA rules could have offered.
4. Therefore NPA 2008-07 only partly touches obstacle #1 in certification
of a new product:
Inclusion of several administrative steps until the product is fully
certified.
This is the result of the need for the applicant to deal now typically with
a) EASA programmes department, b) EASA certification department, c)
external certification managers (e.g. at a NAA), d) in case of nonconventional
products: EASA rulemaking.
The proposed inclusion of Qualified Entities (QE) will only improve this
situation if the applicant has only to deal with the QE instead of having
now an additional administrative counter-part.
5. The next real existing problem of regulation is costs.
EASA is the first European agency with full executive rights and has
been created to improve the economical power of the European
Aerospace Aviation industry (aka EADS and other "big aviation players")
plus harmonizing safety standards especially in international aviation.
This is an important and fully legitimate goal.
This has also resulted into an Agency which is quite complicated and
regulation driven (even with a designated Rulemaking Department)
which means that it is expensive to operate.
Sadly the European politicians did not consider safety in aviation to be
an topic which should be financed by EC funds so it was decided that
"industry" should pay at least for the certification parts of EASA.
This new Agency is not really good suited working with the small
companies representing small aviation but these small companies have
now also to pay the resulting costs.
Every time when the EASA fees & charges regulation is been discusssed
the small aviation community offered these insights - the standard
counter has been "this is the political will in Europe".
Now a so called better regulation is been offered but no word is included
to explain how it could be more affordable.
Instead every time when a small company tried to explain how several
thousand Euros in fees could mean the difference of economic welfare
or not it has been given the answer that such small prices must not be
Page 65 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
a problem.
(Nota bene this answer is given be EASA representatives who bill 225
Euro per hour according to the EASA fees & charges regulation which is
certainly the highest hourly rate in the small aviation sector by a factor
of at least 3!)
6. Related to costs is the problem of processing time for certification tasks.
It is true that all single administrative parties (EASA departments and
NAA) try to do their work as fast as possible. Nevertheless there are
now many such parties (see observation 4). This results into much
longer processing times. This is even more visible when changes, STC
or repairs have to be certified.
It has to be seen that such delays are quite costly for manufacturers -
especially if such a delay means a later date to get onto the market
with the new or changed product.
7. Regarding the certification of organisations (production, design and
maintenance) also the situation has not improved by introduction of
EASA:
First now the applicant has to deal now with different authorities
(design: EASA, production & maintenance: NAA) which complicates
communication and adds additional costs and complexity.
Second the rules for organisation approval have become mor
complicated.
Third on the side of EASA (and some NAA) the opportunity was used to
apply big aviation standards to the certification processes of small
companies. Endless man-hours have been spent by trying to explain to
the regarding authority representatives that certain rules are much
over-the-top for small companies having a typical staff number of less
than ten regarding decision makers and/or engineers.
And last but not least the authorites are deaf to the complaint that the
need for approval of "just annother organisation manual" describing
again the same organisation now doing still the same things is an
investment that such small companies cannot do every few years.
In summary the European sailplane manufacturers cannot say that introduction
of EASA was very beneficiary for their bussiness.
The now European-wide certification for the products is more than balanced by
the added costs and problems described above.
Neither the market-share world-wide nor the safety level has increased for the
gliding sector due to the introduction of EASA.
Nevertheless EASA NPA 2008-07 is offering only a slightly improved version of
existing regulation as a "better regulation for General Aviation".
The European sailplane manufacturers do not see a big improvement and are
certainly disappointed.
They have not been consulted - because they know the weaknesses of the
existing system?
Nevertheless the sailplane manufacturers offer their comments to the single
points listed in this NPA hoping that some re-work of the proposed regulation
will at least help to improve the existing situation.
The criticism against the Agency is outside the scope of this NPA. In addition,
the Agency has brought significant advantages such as one type certificate
only instead of multiple certificates with the possibility of national variants. The
Page 66 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
European Sailplanes manufacturer association was not included in the drafting
group because we felt that design and manufacture issues were sufficiently
covered by highly experienced EASA and National Authorities colleagues. They
have had the opportunity to comment during the consultation period and based
on its input the association was invited to join the review group. This NPA is a
genuine attempt to address the problem of a “one size fits all” European
regulation and to simplify certification processes which should reduce costs.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 613 comment by: Cessna Aircraft Company
response Noted
Cessna recommends that a stand-alone European light-sport aircraft
(LSA) category be established as it offers the greatest opportunity for
promoting aviation within Europe.
Section A, Subpart B, 21A.14, Demonstration of Capability:
o Cessna fully supports the ELA 2 definition for CS-LSA Aeroplane "An
aeroplane, sailplane, or powered sailplane with MTOM less than 2000 kg that is
not classified as complex-motor-powered aircraft".
- The FAA definition of a LSA aircraft includes this language: "(6) A
single, reciprocating engine, if powered".
- EAA is in the process of working in partnership with the FAA to
change this language to allow greater flexibility in the choice of engines. The
aviation engine industry and individual innovators are rapidly developing both
pure electric aircraft motor technologies and gas-electric hybrid aircraft engine
technologies. It is this advancing technology that the current FAA regulatory
language of "reciprocating" prohibits. It is Cessna's hope that this issue will be
resolved in the very near future.
o § The wording in your proposed LSA specifications supports
these evolving environmentally friendly aircraft engine
technologies.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 624 comment by: Martin Josef Warken
(General comments)
1. The proposed changes in the present NPA were not what the light
aviation community asked for. We plead for a stand-aloneEuropeanLSA
category,compatible with LSA categoryin the United States. The
proposed amendments represent more an attempt at resuscitation of
the conventional light aviation than of a successful integration of the
modern Ultralights in the European regulatory frame work. There is a
serious risk that the successful light aviation (represented by the
modern Ultralights) will be killed by the present proposals.
2. The withdrawal of Annex II must not be related with the introduction
of ELA. Within the Annex II a lot of pilots fly, a lot of manufacturers
work and a lot of employees earn a living. The Annex II has to be
protected until ELA has prooved that it can be as successful as the
Annex II area.
Page 67 of 446

esponse Partially accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 664 comment by: DGAC France
1a. COMMENT TO :
ü Explanatory Note
1b. AFFECTED PARAGRAPH :
2. COMMENT:
La note d'explication parle d'une certification « allégée » des ELA mais ne
précise pas quel serait le niveau d'implication des autorités (EASA, entité
qualifiée) dans la vérification de conformité. La DGAC recommande de créer un
paragraphe dans la section B de la Part 21 qui définirait le niveau d'implication
de l'entité menant la certification (AESA ou entité qualifiée) et de créer une
procédure AESA plus détaillée.
La DGAC recommande que ce nouveau paragraphe 21.B.XX contienne au
moins les obligations suivantes :
Pour un aéronef ELA 2
- vérification de la tenue de la structure et les limites de vie structure
- vérification des performances et des qualités de vol;
- vérification de la certification du système carburant;
- vérification de l'avionique pour un aéronef IFR;
- vérification de toute conception nouvelle ou innovante.
Pour un aéronef ELA 1
- vérification de la tenue de la structure;
- vérification des performances et des qualités de vol;
- vérification de toute conception nouvelle ou innovante.
Si l'EASA ne précise pas le niveau de vérification souhaité pour les ELA 1,alors
l'implication de l'entité certifiante sera limitée à un avis sur le programme de
certification.
Pour un moteur et une hélice à pas variable
- vérification des rapports d'essais
- vérification de toute conception nouvelle ou innovante.
Pour une hélice à pas fixe
- vérification de toute conception nouvelle ou innovante.
Courtesy translation:
The explanatory note speaks about a simplified procedure but does not explain
how much would be involved the Authority (EASA or qualified entity) in the
conformity assessment verification. DGAC-F recommends the creation of a
paragraph in section B of the Part 21 which would define the implication of the
certifying body (EASA or QE) and to develop a more detailed EASA procedure.
DGAC-F recommends that such a new paragraph 21.B.xx contains the
following elements for the authority involvement:
For an ELA 2 Aircraft
- check of structure integrity and life limited items.
- check of performances and flight qualities
- check of fuel system
- check of avionics for an IFR aircraft
Page 68 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
- check of any new or innovative design
For an ELA 1 Aircraft
- check of structure
- check of performances and flight qualities
- check of any new or innovative design
If EASA does not specify the required conformity level for ELA 1, the certifying
body would limit its job to a recommendation on the certification programme.
For an engine and a variable pitch propeller
- check of the tests reports
- check of any new or innovative design
For a fixed pitch propeller
- check of any new or innovative design
response Partially accepted
The Agency agrees that ELA certification procedures are needed and will
develop them in due course.
comment 667 comment by: DGAC France
response Accepted
1a. COMMENT TO :
ü Draft Opinion(s)
Amendment to Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1702/2003 Part 21
1b. AFFECTED PARAGRAPH :
21A.14, 21A35, 21A.47, 21A.96, 21A.112B, 21A.116, 21A.163,
21A.307, 21A.351 à 21A.385, 21A.432B, 21A.436, 21A.439, 21A.441,
21A.710 (a), 21A.801, 21A.804, 21A.805 et 21B.220 à 260
2. COMMENT:
La DGAC-F soutient ces propositions.
Courtesy translation:
DGAC F supports those proposed changes.
The Agency thanks the commentator for their support.
comment 668 comment by: DGAC France
1a. COMMENT TO :
ü Draft Opinion(s)
Amendment to Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1702/2003 Part 21
1b. AFFECTED PARAGRAPH :
21A.16A:
2. PROPOSED TEXT:
La DGAC-F propose que soit ajoutée une AMC 21A.16 A comme suit
Courtesy translation:
DGAC-F proposes the creation of an AMC 21A.16 A as follows:
Page 69 of 446

esponse Accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
AMC 21A16A Airworthiness codes
For the aeroplanes defined in 21A.14 (b) and (c), the FAR 23 amendment 7 is
an acceptable airworthiness code.
For the engines defined in 21A.14 (b) and (c), the CS-22 subpart H or the
appendix B of CS-VLR for rotorcraft engines are acceptable airworthiness
codes.
For the propellers defined in 21A.14 (b) and (c), the CS-22 subpart J is an
acceptable airworthiness code.
3. JUSTIFICATION:
Le code FAR 23 amendement 7 est la base de certification qui a été utilisée
pour la grande majorité des avions utilisés actuellement en aviation de loisir.
Cette règle technique a donné toute satisfaction au niveau de la sécurité des
vols. Les exigences rajoutées depuis lors n'ont pas démontré d'amélioration
notable de niveau de sécurité alors qu'elles ont engendré des coûts de
développement et de certification importants voire prohibitifs pour certains
projets. Si le règlement de certification CS-23 est imposé aux avions ELA non
conformes à la définition du VLA, cette nouvelle catégorie risque d'être inutile
du fait d'essais coûteux.
De même les règlements CS 22 sous parties H et J et l'appendice B du CS-VLR
ont démontré qu'ils étaient suffisants pour certifier les moteurs et hélices des
aéronefs légers.
Courtesy translation:
FAR 23 amendment 7 code is the certification basis that has been used for the
vast majority of the leisure aviation aeroplanes. It achieved satisfactory safety
level. The supplementary requirements added in the following amendments did
not substantially increase safety level. They created additional development
and certification important costs or even led to drop some projects. If the CS-
23 code is mandatory for the ELA aeroplanes not corresponding to VLA
definition, costly tests will jeopardize the interest of this new category.
For the engines and propellers, CS 22 sub-parts H et J et CS-VLR appendix
have demonstrated their effectiveness for light aircraft engines and propellers
certification.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph (b) 2 the criteria for ELA 1 and ELA 2.
comment 687 comment by: DSvU
response Accepted
As said before Danish Soaring Association appreciates the work done by the
Agency to comply with what the non commercial industry and sporting
organisations ask for. We find the establishment of the ELA concept is a huge
step towards what is wanted and we highly support the idea.
The Agency thanks the commentator for their support.
comment 701 comment by: procomposite
1. According FAA and EAA, the amateur built aircraft which have not
any design or manufacturing oversight have an excellent safety record
in the US. Further more design and manufacturing errors are less than
with certified aircrafts. Maintenance and pilot errors (first flights) are
Page 70 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
more. In 3 years LSA in the US only one design issue did come up and
that was with an type certified aircraft.
That clearly proofs that aircrafts with design and manufacturing oversight do
not delivery any safety benefit. Statistics show even the opposite. The reason
can be that traditional standards (Part 21,22,23,25) are static and not
dynamically developing to safety needs like ASTM 2245,2279 and others.
response Partially accepted
2. The proposed changes in the present NPA were not what the light
aviation community asked for. We plead for a stand-aloneEuropeanLSA
category,compatible with LSA categoryin the United States. The
proposed amendments represent more an attempt at resuscitation of
the conventional general aviation than of a successful integration of the
modern (Ultra)lights in the European regulatory frame work. There is a
serious risk that the world leading European light aviation industry
(represented by the modern Advanced Ultralights) will be destroyed
totally by the present proposals.
3. The withdrawal of Annex II must not be related with the introduction
of ELA. Within the Annex II a lot of pilots fly, a lot of manufacturers
work and a lot of employees earn a living. The Annex II has to be
protected until ELA has prooved that it can be as successful as the
Annex II area.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 704 comment by: Europe Air Sports, VP
response Noted
Europe Air Sports is an association of the European National Aero Clubs, and
European Air Sports Unions, with the objective to co-ordinate regulatory
matters in Europe. EAS is not directly involved in manufacturing and
certification of the aircraft but as a consequence of a simplified certification
process we expect aircraft to become cheaper and therefore more affordable to
a larger number of European citizens. That is why we have an interest in this
NPA 2008-07.
We expect that most comments will be done by manufacturers or individuals
who are building and manufacturing aircraft concerned by this NPA. EAS will
therefore not comment detailed technical proposals of this NPA. EAS will
mainly focus on NPA for Licensing, Medical Standars and Operations where
most of our members have their interests.
Nevertheless we appreciate the effort which EASA has put into this NPA.
The Agency thanks the commentator for their support.
comment 722 comment by: European Microlight Federation
The NPA says that the proposals included do not apply to microlights. However
Regulation (EC) 216/2008 can only be referring to microlights when it says
"...proportionate measures should be taken to increase generally the level of
safety of recreational aviation. Consideration should in particular be given to
aeroplanes and helicopters with a low maximum take-off mass and whose
performance is increasing, which can circulate all over the Community and
which are produced in an industrial manner. They therefore can be better
Page 71 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
regulated at Community level to provide for the necessary uniform level of
safety and environmental protection."
This suggests the risk that some microlights may at a future time find
themselves transferred to the ELA1 category. For this reason the microlight
community is obliged take a strong interest in this NPA.
The NPA cites "the development of the microlight movement in Europe" in a
way which implies that microlights have been a European-driven success,
which is true.
The NPA then points out the anomaly that "the majority of LSA types are of
European origin but these cannot operate legally in the EU", implying that this
must be put right, which it must.
The NPA affirms the widespread belief that "the regulatory framework applied
to recreational aircraft has become progressively too heavy for the nature of
the activities involved and places too high a regulatory burden on designers
and manufacturers", which is indisputable.
However, by ignoring the view widely held amongst those who fly and
manufacture aircraft at the lighter end of the spectrum, that the upper MTOM
limit of ELA1 at 1,000 kg is too high, and by failing to create a separate
category of up to 750 kg or 600 kg, the NPA condemns the new ELA1 category
it proposes to create to failure.
This NPA cannot be viewed alone but must be taken with the NPAs on
Licensing, Continuing Airworthiness and Operations. Taken as a whole these
regulations benefit the heavy end of the ELA1 spectrum while offering nothing
to the light end. The greatest beneficiaries will be those who wish to
manufacture and fly light 4-seater aircraft. The proposals will also benefit
those who fly traditional light aeroplanes, although this benefit will not halt
their continuing decline as a result of increased purchase and operating costs
when compared with LSA and microlight aircraft.
On the other hand, the spectrum of proposed regulations will effectively bring
to an end the period of growth European recreational aviation has enjoyed in
the past 20 years because it will prevent the creation of exciting new aircraft
manufacturing companies made possible initially by the light regulation of
microlights and later boosted by the strong demand from the US for LSA.
These new regulations will add cost and bureaucracy and bring no benefit.
If these new regulations were to be successful they would lead to massive
demand from pilots of high performance microlights to transfer their aircraft
from the microlight register outside of EASA control to the ELA1 register and
EASA. This will not happen. Pilots will be far happier where they are, where
the cost and bureaucracy are far less of a burden.
If these new regulations were to be successful they would lead to an explosion
in the growth of exciting new aircraft manufacturing companies. This will not
happen. Instead, the introduction of these regulations will mark the end of a
period of growth. Future growth will come from those manufacturers whose
success has been permitted by the light microlight regulations; their growth
will be into heavier and four seat aircraft and their market will continue to be
the USA.
In short, this set of NPAs represents a failure on behalf of Europe to capitalise
on European success. It shows how regulators can, with the best of intentions,
destroy the very things they seek to protect and advance. If these regulations
are introduced as proposed we will look back in 10 years time with nostalgia on
the glorious period at the end of the millennium when, for a brief decade,
European aviation had its golden moment of growth before the regulators put a
stop to it.
It is not too late to prevent this. Instead of reinventing the wheel in this way
EASA should take the best from microlighting and the US LSA and create
aviation-friendly regulations which make the microlight community rush to
Page 72 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
embrace EASA. It must split the proposed ELA1 category into two parts,
probably at the 600 kg point, although higher at 700 kg or 750 kg
would also work. It should then start again and produce
airworthiness, licensing and operations regulations for this lighter
category that industry finds acceptable and even attractive. It should
start with that blank sheet of paper we were promised at the start of the
MDM032 process. However, this time the sheet of paper should really be
blank.
This would create a new sub-1,000 kg structure with ELA1 Heavy
(above, say, 600 kg), ELA1 Light (probably corresponding to the US
LSA) and Microlights (with the weights as in paragraph e of Annex II).
I have no doubt that some in EASA will say that this is too complicated a
solution but in the view of many in recreational aviation these critics will be the
people who put bureaucratic convenience before the future of sports and
recreational aviation in Europe.
Fundamentally, EASA should rethink its approach to the light end of
recreational aviation. It should examine what already works. It should listen to
those it seeks to regulate as these people have not done a bad job. Lightly
regulated microlights do not all fall from the skies. Stories of widespread fatal
accidents do not fill our newspapers. There is no safety case for the steps
EASA is proposing; the microlight airworthiness-related fatal accident statistics
amply demonstrate what can be achieved under light regulation.
In the meantime, the microlight community continues to fear EASA. We find
ourselves unable to imagine life under EASA control. As a result we will resist
the advances of EASA for as long as possible or until EASA fundamentally
rethinks its approach to the light end of sports and recreational aviation.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 723 comment by: Oliver
response Noted
The proposed changes in the present NPA were not what the light aviation
community asked for. We plead for a stand-alone European LSA
category, compatible with LSA category in the United States. The proposed
amendments represent more an attempt at resuscitation of the conventional
light aviation than of a successful integration of the modern Ultralights in the
European regulatory frame work. There is a serious risk that the successful
light aviation (represented by the modern Ultralights) will be killed by the
present proposals.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 724 comment by: Oliver
response Noted
The withdrawal of Annex II must not be related with the introduction of ELA.
Within the Annex II a lot of pilots fly, a lot of manufacturers work and a lot of
employees earn a living. The Annex II has to be protected until ELA has
prooved that it can be as successful as the Annex II area.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
Page 73 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 749 comment by: Dr. med. Waltraud Wahler-Brenk
Auszug von der DULV-Homepage, unter „EASA stellt ELA und Lizenzen vor!":
Dem ursprünglichen Wunsch der europäischen Ultraleichtflieger zur Adoption
der amerikanischen LSA-Klasse wollte die EASA nicht entsprechen. Stattdessen
sollte eine neue Kategorie in der nicht kommerziellen Luftfahrt kreiert werden,
die dann Luftfahrzeuge bis 2000 kg MTOM und Ballone einschließt. Diese
Kategorie soll den Namen ELA I (bis 1000 kg) und ELA II (bis 2000 kg)
bekommen. Neben den existierenden ULs (bis 472,5 kg - weiterhin national
geregelt) sollen damit „die schweren ULs", die VLA, Segelflugzeuge,
Motorsegeler, Ballone und Luftschiffe in dieser Kategorie unter der EASA-Regie
zusammengefaßt werden.
Hiermit komme ich Ihrer Aufforderung nach meinen Kommentar zu der o.a.
NPA abzugeben. Dieser Kommentar bezieht sich im Wesentlichen auf die
„schweren ULs".
Als Halter eines „schweren ULs" fliege ich seit Jahren teilweise illegal.
Gemeinsam mit anderen Haltern (knapp 40 ULs dieser Typenreihe) versuchen
wir bisher total vergeblich unsere ULs aus dieser Illegalität herauszuführen.
Dazu wurden schriftlich der/das
Deutsche Aero Club eV., LSGB, Braunschweig,
Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), Braunschweig,
Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMV), Bonn,
Bundesstelle für Flugunfalluntersuchung BFU, Braunschweig,
Deutscher Ultraleichtverband (DULV) eV., Großerlach-Morbach,
ersucht und entsprechende Anträge verfasst und gestellt.
Sämtlichen vorgenannten Institutionen bzw. den Verantwortlichen in diesen
Institutionen ist diese Illegalität und der unhaltbarer Zustand definitiv und
positiv bekannt. Trotz dessen wird es durch Schweigen abgelehnt, unsere ULs
aus der formalen Illegalität herauszuführen, obwohl dies technisch
nachweislich möglich ist. Anhand der Rechtsordnung der Bundesrepublik
Deutschland ist eine solche Haltung nicht zu rechtfertigen. Alle betroffenen
Halter betrachten diese Untätigkeit der Verantwortlichen als unterlassene
Hilfeleistung.
Unabhängig davon werden in Deutschland hunderte von ULs anderer Baureihen
ebenso illegal betrieben. Sämtliche betroffene Halter befinden sich
gleichlautend straf- und zivilrechtlich ohne Notwendigkeit in bedenklicher
Situation.
Beim Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), Braunschweig, habe ich, neben weiteren
Haltern, mit Schreiben vom 8.6.2008 einen Antrag auf Zulassung meines UL
zur „Beschränkten Sonderklasse" gestellt, um auf diesem Wege zu versuchen,
unsere ULs aus dieser Illegalität herauszuführen. Mit Schreiben des Luftfahrt-
Bundesamtes (LBA) vom 30.6.2008 wurde mir gegenüber diesem Antrag „aus
rein formalen Gründen" nicht entsprochen.
Sämtlichen Verantwortlichen in den vorgenannten Institutionen ist bekannt,
daß mein UL und andere ULs technisch exakt baugleich sind mit Exemplaren
welche als LFZ in der „Beschränkten Sonderklasse" (Experimental, E-
Zulassung) bereits seit Jahren zugelassen und beim LBA, Braunschweig,
registriert sind. Mithin werden miteinander baugleiche LFZ und ULs bewußt
Page 74 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
unterschiedlich behandelt. Hinzu kommt, daß die LFZ in der „Beschränkten
Sonderklasse", die tatsächlich ULs sind, zu 51 % im Selbstbau hergestellt sind
und mein/unser baugleiches UL zu 100 % im Herstellerbetrieb hergestellt
wurde. Ich vermag nicht zu erkennen, ob es hinsichtlich der qualitativen
Betrachtung, selbstverständlich in der Folge auch die Risikobetrachtung,
zwischen überwiegendem Selbstbau und Fertigung im Herstellerbetrieb eine
noch drastischere Ungleichbehandlung gibt. In einem Herstellerbetrieb wird
ausgebildetes, qualifiziertes und lizenziertes Personal beschäftigt, bei ständiger
Anwesenheit eines lizenzierten Prüfers. Das bei einem mindestens 51 %igen
Selbstbau tätige Personal kann ich nicht im entferntesten beurteilen.
Darüber hinaus wurden inzwischen mehrere baugleiche Exemplare der
Baureihe meines/unseres ULs nachweislich einer Belastungsprüfung mit MOTW
560 KG unterzogen, ohne jegliche negative Feststellungen. Bei einem LTB
durchgeführt, in einem schriftlichen Prüfbericht dokumentiert, einschl.
schriftlicher Dokumentation durch einen Prüfer Klasse V. Sie können mithin
technisch bis zum vorgenannten Abfluggewicht betrieben werden. Mein UL wird
in Kürze ebenso einer gleichlautenden Belastungsprüfung unterzogen.
Dies vorausgeschickt wird dieser Kommentar gleichzeitig verbunden mit dem
Antrag, daß Sie es ermöglichen, die sogenannten „schweren ULs" in die
Kategorie ELA I einzuordnen, um sie zukünftig auch formal ordnungsgemäß am
Luftverkehr teilhaben zu lassen.
Gleichzeitig wird für den Zeitraum der Einordnung der „schweren ULs" in die
ELA I für die Übergangsphase eine VVZ-Regelung oder Permit to fly beantragt.
Dies mit der Begründung, daß sie bereits heute, nach erfolgreich
durchgeführter Belastungsprüfung, abgestellt auf 560/600 KG, den Kriterien
von ELA I entsprechen.
Die beiden vorgenannten Anträge bedürfen einer äußerst dringenden
Behandlung, da eine erhebliche Anzahl von ULs in wesentlichen Parametern
nicht den Vorgaben der DAeC-Gerätekennblätter entsprechen. Sowohl der
DAeC/LSGB und das LBA, beide Braunschweig, haben von dieser Tatsache
positive Kenntnis. Ebenso sind beide Institutionen darüber positiv in Kenntnis,
daß es technisch unzweifelhaft möglich ist, eine erhebliche Anzahl der
betroffenen ULs aus dieser de jure bestehenden Abweichung vom
Gerätekennblatt herauszuführen.
Hinzu kommt, daß dies nicht nur in Deutschland zugelassene ULs betrifft,
sonder fast ausnahmslos alle ULs in Europa.
Bitte lassen Sie mir zum gegebenen Zeitpunkt eine Nachricht zukommen.
Nunmehr das obige Schreiben in englischer Fassung. Sehen Sie mir nach,
wenn es da und dort vielleicht etwas holprig ist, denn Ihr Fachenglisch ist für
mich nicht ganz so einfach:
Now the above letter in the English version. See me if it here and there
perhaps something doggerel, because your subject is English for me is not
quite so simple:
Excerpt from the DULV homepage, "EASA, ELA and licenses!"
The original request of the European ultra-light plane for adoption of the
American LSA class wanted the EASA not. Instead, there should be a new
category of non-commercial aviation can be created, then the aircraft up to
Page 75 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
2000 kg MTOM and includes balloons. This category will be the name ELA I (up
to 1000 kg) and ELA II (up to 2000 kg). In addition to the existing ULs (up
472.5 kg - still nationally regulated) should thus "the overweight ULs", the
VLA, gliders, Motorsegeler, balloons and airships in this category of the EASA-
Regie may be merged.
My comment to NPA No. 2008-07 ELA process and others
Ladies and gentlemen,
This brings me to my call your comment on the above NPA must. This
comment refers mainly to the "overweight ULs".
As a holder of one "overweight ULs" fly I for years partially illegal. Together
with other farmers (almost 40 ULs this type series), we try in vain our total so
far from this illegality ULs mainstream. In addition, the writing:
German Aero Club eV., LSGB, Braunschweig,
Federal Aviation (LBA), Braunschweig,
Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development (BMV), Bonn,
Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accident Investigation BFU, Braunschweig,
German Ultralight Association (DULV) eV., Großerlach-Morbach,
and calls and requests to appropriate.
All these institutions and those responsible in these institutions is illegal and
intolerable situation definitely and positively. Despite his silence, it will be
rejected by our ULs from the mainstream formal illegality, although this is
technically possible evidence. Based on the legal order of the Federal Republic
of Germany is such an attitude can not be justified. All interested holder in this
inaction as a failure of policy makers assistance.
Regardless of which are in Germany ULs hundreds of other series also illegal.
All the affected holders are identical criminal and civil law without the need
seriously situation.
At the Federal Aviation Office (LBA), Braunschweig, have I, amongst other
holders, in a letter dated 8.6.2008 an application for admission to my UL
"Limited special class", in this way to try our ULs from this illegality
mainstream. By letter from the Federal Aviation Office (LBA) of 30.6.2008, I
was given to this request "for purely formal reasons" has not been met.
All leaders in the above institutions are aware that my UL and other ULs
technically exactly identical copies of which are as aircrafts in the "Limited
special class" (Experimental, E-registration) has already been approved and
the LBA, Braunschweig, are registered. Thus are identical with each
other aircrafts and ULs deliberately treated differently. In addition, the aircrafts
in the "Limited special class", which actually ULs, 51 % are manufactured in
self and my/our UL identical to 100 % in the manufacturing company has been
established. I can not tell if there any qualitative consideration, of course,
would also risk consideration, mainly between self and production in
manufacturing company an even more drastic inequality. In a manufacturing
company is trained, qualified and licensed personnel employed in permanent
presence of a licensed auditor. The one at least 51 % self staff, I can not judge
the remotest.
In addition, since several identical copies of the series of my/our ULs evidence
of a stress test with 560 KG MOTW subject, without any negative findings. In a
LTB, in a written report documented, including written documentation by a
moderator class V. You can therefore technically up to the aforementioned
take-off weight operated. My UL will shortly as an equivalent load test.
That said, this comment at the same time connected with the request that you
allow the so-called "overweight ULs" in the category ELA I classify, to the
future also formally properly on air transport to participate.
At the same time period for the classification of "overweight ULs" in the ELA
Page 76 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
I for the transitional phase VVZ-arrangements or Permit to fly. This on the
grounds that it already today, after successfully loading test carried off on
560/600 KG, the criteria ELA I.
The two aforementioned applications require a very urgent treatment, since a
significant number of ULs in essential parameters do not meet the
requirements of the DAeC-Gerätekennblätter (equipment identification tags).
Both the DAeC/LSGB and the LBA, both of Braunschweig, have benefited from
this positive fact. There are also positive about both institutions in this regard,
that it is technically possible is undoubtedly a significant number of affected
ULs from this de jure existing Gerätekennblatt (equipment identification tags)
deviation from the mainstream.
In addition, not only in Germany approved ULs, but almost without exception
all ULs in Europe.
Please let me at the appropriate time to send a message.
The purpose of this NPA is not to solve the case of specific aircraft.
Aircraft that do not comply with the criteria of Annex II paragraph (e) have to
comply with Part-21. The Opinion resulting from this NPA will propose a
simplifed process called ELA.
The Agency intends to launch another rulemaking task to modify Regulation
(EC) No 216/2008 to achieve the following:
1. Propose the necessary modifications to the Basic Regulation and to EASA
Implementing Rules to achieve an adapted level of regulation for ELA 1 for
airworthiness, maintenance, operations and licensing.
2. Harmonise the above with other authorities.
3. Improve the approach to orphan aircraft.
4. Review the essential requirements for airworthiness to avoid any unwanted
effects on the small aircraft.
5. Propose that a Type Certificate for engine and propellers is not needed for
some ELA aircraft.
6. Ensure that self-sustained powered sailplanes equipped with a turbojet are
non-complex aircraft.
This proposal to modify the Basic Regulation will follow the rulemaking process,
therefore allowing full consultation of stakeholders and will be supported by a
study. The corresponding rulemaking task could start in 3rd quarter 2010 with
an Opinion issued in early 2013.
The Agency wishes to point out that in its Opinion scheduled for December
2010 it will not propose any modifications to Annex II. If the manufacturer of
an aircraft originally classified in Annex II wishes to increase the Maximum
Take-Off Mass of the design beyond the limit of Annex II, it will have to comply
with the requirements applicable to ELA, including design and production
requirements.
[1] The reference to paragraph (e) means that aircraft complying with
paragraph (c) of Annex II are not covered by that measure. Paragraph (c)
reads as follows: aircraft which at least...
comment 750 comment by: Air Marugan
General comment
1. According FAA and EAA, the amateur built aircraft which have not any
design or manufacturing oversight have an excellent safety record in the US.
Further more design and manufacturing errors are less than with certified
Page 77 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
aircrafts. Maintenance and pilot errors (first flights) are more. In 3 years LSA
in the US only one design issue did come up and that was with an type
certified aircraft.
That clearly proofs that aircrafts with design and manufacturing oversight do
not delivery any safety benefit. Statistics show even the opposite. The reason
can be that traditional standards (Part 21,22,23,25) are static and not
dynamically developing to safety needs like ASTM 2245,2279 and others.
2. The proposed changes in the present NPA were not what the light
aviation community asked for. We plead for a stand-alone European LSA
category, compatible with LSA category in the United States. The proposed
amendments represent more an attempt at resuscitation of the conventional
general aviation than of a successful integration of the modern (Ultra)lights in
the European regulatory frame work. There is a serious risk that the world
leading European light aviation industry (represented by the modern Advanced
Ultralights) will be destroyed totally by the present proposals.
3. The withdrawal of Annex II must not be related with the introduction of
ELA. Within the Annex II a lot of pilots fly, a lot of manufacturers work and a
lot of employees earn a living. The Annex II has to be protected until ELA has
prooved that it can be as successful as the Annex II area.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 777 comment by: luciano giannini
response Noted
The Italian Microlight Federation - FIVU - thinks that the proposed changes in
the NPA 2008-07 substantially appear as a involution in respect to the great
and natural evolution of microlight and recreational aviation and is not what
the light aviation community asked for.
We think that a stand-alone European LSA category, compatible with the US-
LSA category, could be the natural solution, in order to answer at the
expectations of pilots, manufacturers farm (uniformity of the market), and fly
schools.
Last but not least, an European LSA category will be decisive to implement an
unique set of rules.
Any other proposal, like ELA 1, could be only a very approximate attempt to
resolve the problems highlight in the present and, probable, future scenarios
of EU recreational aviation. There is a serious risk that the successful light
aviation (represented by the modern microlights) will be killed by the present
proposals.
At the same time, we think that Annex II represent an important and essential
gate entry to the simplest end economic way to get the possibility of fly for
thousands of fans and tens of manufacturers: in other words, the better way
to promote and popularize aeronautical culture.
About that, we believe that Annex II must be keep in force until European
Community will be able to guarantee the same strategic objectives for the
basic microlight sector.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
Page 78 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 778 comment by: Herbert HERGET
General comment
6
6
The General Aviation crisis - with the solitary exception of the ultralights in the
frame of Annex II - is resulting from the increasing regulatory harassment and
increasing costs (which result directly from over-regulation). These increased
regulations are officially justified by a desire of increasing flight safety in this
leisure activity, but prove to have no practical effect - at least on safety -
except
decreasing the number of pilots,
decreasing the number of hours flown by pilots as a direct effect of the
escalati ng costs,
obstructing technical progress as a direct effect of the escalating costs
for certifying parts and products, which induces the attitude to use and
sell a product - once certified - as long, as possible,
all this even decreasing safety! I welcome this initiative, which is likely to
allow many Europeans pilots to benefit from the light regulatory frame light
aviation is enjoying in many countries. The wish for an LSA equivalent in EU is
a direct result o f the wish for greater operational possibilities, which have
become a simple reality because of the performances of modern ultralights.
Realising these greater operational possibilities within the framework of
present Annex II (which is technically absolutely possible) creates complex and
extremely expensive aircrafts - the contrary of the simple and affordable
aircrafts, ultralights wanted to be in the begi nning. US-LSA shows a very
reasonable way out of this situation. To guarantee the success of this new
regulation, I think that EASA showed pusillanimity in its approach of the future
certification process, particularly when it comes to the ELA1 class, which is
intended to encompass the greatest possible number of leisure aircraft. It is
only by setting up a self certification by the manufacturer that the costs of this
process could be drastically reduced and thus support the creativity and the
competition essential to the development of attracting leisure aviation.
Comparing a self declaration system to a system based on Qualified Entities
(QE), I am convinced that
QE is far more expensive
QE only provides a fictitious improvement of security
FAA-LSA is taking the security aspect into account,
by stipulating technically simple and good-natured aircrafts, and
by distinguishing two different cases of secur ity/protection level
needed:
S-LSA, quasi („QE") certified by the manufacturer for a serial
production, which must not be modified.
E-LSA, built as an „Experimental", which can be modified.
Instead of setting up a heavy process of control involving many costly third
parties, the Agency could have been satisfied with a survey control and probing
system, reserving it's right to check the declarations of the manufacturers, or
when failure to match the certification codes is suspected. Thus, I estimate
that the evolution suggested - even if it constitutes a certain lightening of their
tasks for the existing manufacturers of certified aircrafts - will be insufficient to
stop the decline of the leisure aviation as a whole. This is more than certain
when reviewing the currently published proposals related to licensing and
maintenance procedures, which are practically as heavy as what prevailed
before (national legislations). The promised innovation seems to be nothing
else but a slightly modified reproduction of the stillborn child VLA, which has
never had any positive effect on recreational aviation. So, I express my large
Page 79 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
disappointment about the way those promising new rules are developed.
General conclusion: The proposed changes in the present NPA were not
what the light=2 0aviation community asked for. The proposed amendments
represent rather an attempt of resuscitation of the conventional light aviation
than of a successful integration of the modern Ultralights in the European
regulatory frame work. There is a serious risk, that the successful light
aviation, represented by the modern Ultralights, will be=2 0killed by the
present proposals. The future of Annex II must not be related with the
introduction of ELA, the way, it is proposed now. Within the Annex II, a lot of
pilots fly, a lot of manufacturers work and a lot of employees earn a living. The
Annex II has to be protected until ELA has proved that it can be as successful
as the Annex II area. In such circumstances I express firmly my clear and
determined choice that aircraft below 450kg MTOW (472,5Kg with recovery
parachute) should remain outside of the scope of EASA, in Annex II. I am very
satisfied with the current situation and have no wish whatsoever to see it
change. Concerning the aspect of the subclass LSA, whose purpose it is to
facilitate the work of the European manufacturers already exporting in the
USA, I am astonished about the technical framework introduced by the NPA.
Actually, the American LSA class is strictly limited to a minimum stall speed
without flaps to 45 kts and to a 120 kts maximum full power level speed. Also
prohibited are=2 0the use of variable pitch propellers and retractable gears. If
exonerating ELA 1 of these lim itations, which justify the lightened regulation
granted to this new class of aircraft by the FAA, the Agency does not achieve
this goal. Therefore, I hereby clearly claim to adopt the original definition of
the FAA-LSA category without reservation. Justification:
US-LSA has well been considered and created with a good know-how. It
is principally useful.
It is better to accept a limitation of technical complexity, than a
limitation of operational use of the aircrafts.
Accepting a limitation of technical complexity is the best argument for
staying out of complex (over)regulation.
Technical complexity is expensive.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
TITLE PAGE p. 1
comment 342 comment by: Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Switzerland
response Noted
Attachment #2
Noted. Replies will be provided on detailed comments.
A. Explanatory Note - I. General p. 3
comment 144 comment by: ENAC
The scope of task MDM.032 is to regulate aircraft other than complex powered
aircraft used in non commercial activities. In the proposed NPA there is no
Page 80 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
restriction of these aircraft to non commercial activities.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph (b): 7 parts that do not need an EASA Form
1.
comment 549 comment by: UK CAA
response Noted
Subject/Topic Commercial Use or not?
NPA Section/Page Comment
Section A, I It is not clear from the NPA whether the aircraft that will be
"General"
approved through the ELA process will be allowed to be
Page 3
used commercially or not.
Section A, IV,
"Further
Considerations..",
Page 6
In Section A, I "General", the MDM.032 rulemaking task is
defined as:
"Regulation of aircraft other than complex motor powered
aircraft, used in non-commercial activities."
However, this is contradicted by the statement in Section
A, IV, "Further Considerations..", Page 6 - "...the Type
Certificate will not limit the aircraft to a specific category of
operations"
It may be considered that the kind of operations permitted
should be defined in the operating rules and not in Part 21,
but the operating rules will need some means to identify
ELA aircraft separately from other aircraft.
Questions
Will an aircraft approved through the ELA process be
permitted to operate commercially or not?
Will certain kinds of commercial operation be permitted,
and if so which specific activities?
Will an aircraft approved through the ELA process be
identified as an ELA on its Type Certificate and Certificate
of Airworthiness?
If ELA aircraft are not to be a separate certification
category, how will the operating rules refer to them when
defining their operating limitations?
Please find below the replies to the specific questions:
Will an aircraft approved through the ELA process be permitted to operate
commercially or not? Will certain kinds of commercial operation be permitted,
and if so which specific activities?
There is no reason to limit operations from the technical point of view in
certification.
Will an aircraft approved through the ELA process be identified as an ELA on its
Type Certificate and Certificate of Airworthiness?
This TC will be issued in accordance with Part-21 when the Opinion is adopted
by the legislator. This TC will use a process that is proportionate to the aircraft
covered by ELA. In that context there is no reason to put a specific mention of
ELA process.
Page 81 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
If ELA aircraft are not to be a separate certification category, how will the
operating rules refer to them when defining their operating limitations?
The recent Opinion to Part-M has introduced the ELA by using a definition of the
criteria used in 21A.14. The same practice could be adopted by operating rules if
there is a need to establish operating limitation.
comment 608 comment by: Ronald MEYER
The NPAs on Operations and licensing, meanwhile issued, ignore the
successfull systems for operations and licensing within the European Ultralights
and the FAA-LSA categories in the same way, this NPA is ignoring the
successfull systems for initial and continued airworthiness within the European
Ultralights and the FAA-LSA framework.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 656 comment by: EAA
General Comment
1. EAA recommends that a stand-alone Paneuropean light-sport aircraft (LSA)
category be established as it offers the greatest opportunity for promoting
aviation within Europe.
2. Section A, Subpart B, 21A.14, Demonstration of Capability:
EAA fully supports the ELA 2 definition for CS-LSA Aeroplane "An
aeroplane, sailplane, or powered sailplane with MTOM less than 2000 kg
that is not classified as complex-motor-powered aircraft.
The FAA definition of a LSA aircraft includes this language: "(6) A
single, reciprocating engine, if powered."
EAA is in the process of working in partnership with the FAA to change this
language to allow greater flexibility in the choice of engines. The aviation
engine industry and individual innovators are rapidly developing both pure
electric aircraft motor technologies and gas-electric hybrid aircraft engine
technologies. It is this advancing technology that the current FAA regulatory
language of "reciprocating" prohibits. It is EAAs hope that this issue will be
resolved in the very near future.
The wording in your proposed LSA specifications supports these evolving
environmentally friendly aircraft engine technologies. For this, we applaud your
efforts.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision
comment 68 comment by: Michael GREINER
NOTE:
p. 4
Page 82 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
This comment was made against this section of the NPA. This comment and
the response are however only reflected once at page 6 of this CRD in order to
improve readability.
comment 416 comment by: P&M Aviation
response Noted
The published proposals do not apply to Annex II aircraft which includes the
majority of microlight aircraft, is it the intention to leave Annex II aircraft alone
or to incorporate them into some other scheme. Leaving Annex II microlight
aircraft still means that each country has its own set of rules and regulations,
which for the UK would mean that if the proposals in NPA 2008-07 are adopted
then UK microlight aircraft would be designed and built to a higher standard
than proposed by CS-LSA, which appears unusual for aircraft with a lighter
weight and lower inertia.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 652 comment by: Martin Josef Warken
response Accepted
Comment 20
Page 5/6 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Overview of the proposals included in this NPA
Page 6 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - ELA 1
Page 7 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - ELA 2
Page 26/27 B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart B - 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph".
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that - probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter -
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in ...". The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
The presentation will be corrected accordingly.
A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Introduction
comment 68 comment by: Michael GREINER
NOTE:
This comment was made against this section of the NPA. This comment and
p. 4
Page 83 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
the response are however only reflected once at page 6 of this CRD in order to
improve readability.
comment 125 comment by: Ultraleicht-Flugverein Saar-Pfalz e.V.
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
for the the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
mean.
Regarding Initial Airworthiness the proposal is to use a similar mechanism like
done in USA when introducing the LSA category. There a limited timeframe
was available, where each aircraft owner had the possibility by simple
paperwork to get his/her aircraft certified as "experimental" LSA with certain
operational limitations to the new category. There was no new checking of
compliance or such, the individual aircraft was accepted on the basis of its
existing operational experience. For most aircraft owners this is fully sufficient.
Secondly, it is proposed to also offer for factory produced Annex II aircraft
already in service to enhance the scope of usability by showing compliance on
the basis of the certification code the aircraft is already certified to, and
upgrading it through the manufacturing company to the ELA category, without
operational limitations. An example would be that an Ultralight, currently
certified under LTF-UL (Germany), or Section S (UK) or ?!? (Czech) to become
an LSA aircraft, still following LTF-UL certification code, but with enhanced
takeoff mass.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 161 comment by: ENAC
response Accepted
Several times the NPA refers to FAA rules and AC as a target to be achieved,
without taking into account that FAA has different scope from EASA (issue of
Permit to Fly) and different applicability.
The Agency acknowledges that there are differences. FAA material is only
adopted when appropriate.
comment 216 comment by: Aero-Club of Switzerland
response Noted
The Aero-Club of Switzerland is happy to see that the facts of the production
side have been taken into consideration: European products not authorized to
fly in Europe do not promote European aeronautical capabilities.
The Agency thanks the commentator for their support.
Page 84 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 269 comment by: Gorden WIEGELS
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
for the the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
mean.
Regarding Initial Airworthiness the proposal is to use a similar mechanism like
done in USA when introducing the LSA category. There a limited timeframe
was available, where each aircraft owner had the possibility by simple
paperwork to get his/her aircraft certified as “experimental” LSA with certain
operational limitations to the new category. There was no new checking of
compliance or such, the individual aircraft was accepted on the basis of its
existing operational experience. For most aircraft owners this is fully sufficient.
Secondly, it is proposed to also offer for factory produced Annex II aircraft
already in service to enhance the scope of usability by showing compliance on
the basis of the certification code the aircraft is already certified to, and
upgrading it through the manufacturing company to the ELA category, without
operational limitations. An example would be that an Ultralight, currently
certified under LTF-UL (Germany), or Section S (UK) or ?!? (Czech) to become
an LSA aircraft, still following LTF-UL certification code, but with enhanced
takeoff mass.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 353 comment by: British Gliding Association
response Noted
Content of the NPA
The BGA welcomes this development as a major and significant
improvement on previous approaches. We specifically note that the heavy
handed processes of Part-M are removed for this class of aircraft and that
maintenance is underpinned by NPA2007-08. The basic premises of this model
are sound as applied to the classes of aircraft identified.
The Agency thanks the commentator for their support.
comment 376 comment by: O. Reinhardt / Flightdesign
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
Page 85 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
for the the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
mean.
Regarding Initial Airworthiness the proposal is to use a similar mechanism like
done in USA when introducing the LSA category. There a limited timeframe
was available, where each aircraft owner had the possibility by simple
paperwork to get his/her aircraft certified as “experimental” LSA with certain
operational limitations to the new category. There was no new checking of
compliance or such, the individual aircraft was accepted on the basis of its
existing operational experience. For most aircraft owners this is fully sufficient.
Secondly, it is proposed to also offer for factory produced Annex II aircraft
already in service to enhance the scope of usability by showing compliance on
the basis of the certification code the aircraft is already certified to, and
upgrading it through the manufacturing company to the ELA category, without
operational limitations. An example would be that an Ultralight, currently
certified under LTF-UL (Germany), or Section S (UK) or UL-2 (Czech) or other
equivalent codes become an LSA aircraft, still following original certification
code, but with enhanced takeoff mass.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 395 comment by: Thomas Wendt
Comment 21
Page 4 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Introduction
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
for the the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
mean.
Regarding Initial Airworthiness the proposal is to use a similar mechanism like
done in USA when introducing the LSA category. There a limited timeframe
was available, where each aircraft owner had the possibility by simple
paperwork to get his/her aircraft certified as "experimental" LSA with certain
operational limitations to the new category. There was no new checking of
compliance or such, the individual aircraft was accepted on the basis of its
existing operational experience. For most aircraft owners this is fully sufficient.
Secondly, it is proposed to also offer for factory produced Annex II aircraft
already in service to enhance the scope of usability by showing compliance on
Page 86 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
the basis of the certification code the aircraft is already certified to, and
upgrading it through the manufacturing company to the ELA category, without
operational limitations. An example would be that an Ultralight, currently
certified under LTF-UL (Germany), or Section S (UK) or ?!? (Czech) to become
an LSA aircraft, still following LTF-UL certification code, but with enhanced
takeoff mass.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 398 comment by: Flight Design GmbH Matthias Betsch CEO
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
for the the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
mean.
Regarding Initial Airworthiness the proposal is to use a similar mechanism like
done in USA when introducing the LSA category. There a limited timeframe
was available, where each aircraft owner had the possibility by simple
paperwork to get his/her aircraft certified as "experimental" LSA with certain
operational limitations to the new category. There was no new checking of
compliance or such, the individual aircraft was accepted on the basis of its
existing operational experience. For most aircraft owners this is fully sufficient.
Secondly, it is proposed to also offer for factory produced Annex II aircraft
already in service to enhance the scope of usability by showing compliance on
the basis of the certification code the aircraft is already certified to, and
upgrading it through the manufacturing company to the ELA category, without
operational limitations. An example would be that an Ultralight, currently
certified under LTF-UL (Germany), or Section S (UK) or UL-2 (Czech) or other
equivalent codes become an LSA aircraft, still following original certification
code, but with enhanced takeoff mass.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 479 comment by: Tegelbeckers
response Noted
Comment 21
Page 4 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Introduction
No comment has been made.
Page 87 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 521 comment by: aeroklaus
Comment 21
Page 4 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision – Introduction
Page 12 - A. Explanatory Note - V. Regulatory Impact Assessment - 1. Purpose
and intended effect
Page 14 - A. Explanatory Note - V. Regulatory Impact Assessment - 4. Impacts
(Economics)
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
for the the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
mean.
Regarding Initial Airworthiness the proposal is to use a similar mechanism like
done in USA when introducing the LSA category. There a limited timeframe
was available, where each aircraft owner had the possibility by simple
paperwork to get his/her aircraft certified as “experimental” LSA with certain
operational limitations to the new category. There was no new checking of
compliance or such, the individual aircraft was accepted on the basis of its
existing operational experience. For most aircraft owners this is fully sufficient.
Secondly, it is proposed to also offer for factory produced Annex II aircraft
already in service to enhance the scope of usability by showing compliance on
the basis of the certification code the aircraft is already certified to, and
upgrading it through the manufacturing company to the ELA category, without
operational limitations. An example would be that an Ultralight, currently
certified under LTF-UL (Germany), or Section S (UK) or ?!? (Czech) to become
an LSA aircraft, still following LTF-UL certification code, but with enhanced
takeoff mass.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 561 comment by: UK CAA
Subject/Topic European and US Light Sport Aircraft
NPA
Section/Page
Comment
Section A.
Explanatory Note,
IV, Introduction; 3 rd
The NPA discusses the US and European markets and the
approach taken by non-EU countries for this class of
aircraft. The European approach set out in this NPA is
para.
significantly different from that of non-EU countries in that
Part A - Section V, it proposes that Type Certificates will be issued and
4, Impacts (a) (i)
Economic; (vi)
compliance with ICAO standards will be claimed.
Foreign
The FAA has confirmed to the CAA-UK that current US
requirements regulations prohibit the granting of a Light Sport Aircraft
"Special Certificate of Airworthiness" to any aircraft that is
Type Certificated or that has previously held a certificate of
Page 88 of 446

esponse Accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
airworthiness equivalent to any of the following FAA
certificates: standard, primary, restricted, limited, or
provisional. There is a risk therefore that an unintended
effect of implementing this Opinion may be to prevent
further exports of European-built LSA to the US
Is the Agency sure that the implementation of this NPA will
not result in the closure of the US market to European
manufacturers of LSA?
The possibility of importing non-EU ELA/LSA must also be
considered. Take as an example the Cessna Aircraft
Company's impending mass-production of the "Skycatcher"
Light Sport aircraft. This will not have an FAA TC and the
FAA will not provide Export CsofA. The aircraft would
require an EASA TC to fly in Europe. This raises the
prospect that EASA may be asked to grant an EASA TC to
Cessna (without an equivalent FAA TC), and without Cessna
being obliged to have a Part 21 DOA (because the
Skycatcher is ELA1).
There is also the problem of complying with Part 21
requirements for the issue of a CofA to a new aircraft
manufactured outside the EU, when the State of Production
will not issue a statement of the level of airworthiness.
Proposals
It is suggested that, before proceeding further with this
Opinion, EASA should clearly establish with the FAA what
the position would be with respect to the transfer of LSA
between the US and the EU.
To allow for the possible need to be the Primary
Certificating Authority for LSA designed outside the EU,
EASA should consider amending the Opinion to require a
Part 21 DOA for LSA/ELA1.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph (b) 10 on harmonisation with FAA.
comment 602 comment by: klaus M
Comment 21
Page 4 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Introduction
Page 12 - A. Explanatory Note - V. Regulatory Impact Assessment - 1. Purpose
and intended effect
Page 14 - A. Explanatory Note - V. Regulatory Impact Assessment - 4. Impacts
(Economics)
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
for the the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
Page 89 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
mean.
Regarding Initial Airworthiness the proposal is to use a similar mechanism like
done in USA when introducing the LSA category. There a limited timeframe
was available, where each aircraft owner had the possibility by simple
paperwork to get his/her aircraft certified as "experimental" LSA with certain
operational limitations to the new category. There was no new checking of
compliance or such, the individual aircraft was accepted on the basis of its
existing operational experience. For most aircraft owners this is fully sufficient.
Secondly, it is proposed to also offer for factory produced Annex II aircraft
already in service to enhance the scope of usability by showing compliance on
the basis of the certification code the aircraft is already certified to, and
upgrading it through the manufacturing company to the ELA category, without
operational limitations. An example would be that an Ultralight, currently
certified under LTF-UL (Germany), or Section S (UK) or ?!? (Czech) to become
an LSA aircraft, still following LTF-UL certification code, but with enhanced
takeoff mass.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 614 comment by: European Sailplane Manufacturers
The European sailplane manufacturers share the view that the bussiness case
for comanies trying to develop and sell small aircraft has not improved in
Europe.
The simple fact that the manufacturer has in the end the responsibility for his
product and that he has to first communicate with this customer and that
participation of the authorities should only support this has been totally lost by
the several iterations in legislation of sailplane certification processess:
1920´s:
First competitions on the German Wasserkuppe;
a technical commission formed by the organisers, pilots and buiders sees that
the designs fullfill some basic standards
1930´s:
National authorities form but gliding very often stays either with the sporting
organisations and or specialiced organisations.
1950 and 60´s:
Europe goes along the way that certified organisations should have the
according privileges in aviation.
Mostly for the very small sailplane manufacturers at least autorities exist which
cover all regarding tasks (certification of organisations and products,
continuing airworthiness)
1970´s until 2003:
Within the regarding authorities further specialisation occurs meaning more
time spent with autorities for the small manufacturers.
Inclusion of JAR induced regulation brings the need for renewal of existing
licences and approvals.
2003 until today:
EASA is been introdced an again brings the need of doing still the old things by
Page 90 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
new rules. New administrative burdens and costs.
Still there are some companies around trying to sell rather simple products for
the gliding community world-wide....
The god experience within the USA regarding the LSA system with the givingback
of responsibility to the manufacturer and the operater are only been
noticed here in the NPA but no real consequence has been taken in drafting the
proposed rule changes.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 680 comment by: Deutscher Aero Club e.V. (DAeC)
response Noted
comment 717
The Deutscher Aero Club e.V. welcomes the envisaged alleviations to the
certification process in order to revitalise the light aviation market. However
unless the fees & charges regulation is revised as well the result will not be
lasting.
All legal approvals remain issued by the Agency under its Fees and Charges
system. This Fees and Charges system is considered by stakeholders as being
a major hindrance to certification of new aircraft or to certification of changes
or repairs to existing aircraft. The Fees and Charges regulation is adopted by
the Commission. The applicant pays the fees to EASA. The contracts between
EASA and NAA or qualified entities when they are allocated tasks by EASA
contain the financial arrangements between EASA and NAA or QE. Modifying
this framework necessitates an in-depth further study.
comment by: Experimental and Ultralight Committee, Finnish
Aeronautical Association
This NPA is a step forward towards the goal of enabling growth of light aviation
in the EASA domain. Specifically, the proposed CS-LSA category is an essential
element for making leisure aviation more affordable and available for new
pilots throughout the EU. The CS-LSA (or even the FAA LSA) should certainly
be adopted.
However, in our opinion the CS-LSA on its own is not sufficient to ensure that
this "entry level" to EASA-regulated flying is sufficiently attractive to potential
new pilots to ensure the success of the overall MDM.032 goals. The total
regulatory framework including initial airworthiness; licensing; maintenance;
and operations will decide the success or failure of reaching the
goals: combining affordability with adequate safety.
In particular, the LSA shall not be burdened with the full EASA Part M
continuing airworthiness regulations, as that would lead to a cost level that
makes LSA non-competitive compared to alternatives. Past experience from
the microlight area has shown that a system based on owner maintenance
together with inspections by a certified body can provide an adequate level of
safety for this category where only a maximum of one passenger is carried. We
suggest this to be addressed in the EASA maintenance regulations in parallel
with Part-21. While this comment is somewhat outside the Initial Airworthiness
scope of this NPA, we include it as the Part-M consultations were already
Page 91 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
closed before the CS-LSA proposal.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 746 comment by: Oliver
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
for the the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
mean.
Regarding Initial Airworthiness the proposal is to use a similar mechanism like
done in USA when introducing the LSA category. There a limited timeframe
was available, where each aircraft owner had the possibility by simple
paperwork to get his/her aircraft certified as "experimental" LSA with certain
operational limitations to the new category. There was no new checking of
compliance or such, the individual aircraft was accepted on the basis of its
existing operational experience. For most aircraft owners this is fully sufficient.
Secondly, it is proposed to also offer for factory produced Annex II aircraft
already in service to enhance the scope of usability by showing compliance on
the basis of the certification code the aircraft is already certified to, and
upgrading it through the manufacturing company to the ELA category, without
operational limitations. An example would be that an Ultralight, currently
certified under LTF-UL (Germany), or Section S (UK) or ?!? (Czech) to become
an LSA aircraft, still following LTF-UL certification code, but with enhanced
takeoff mass.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 774 comment by: Air Marugan
Comment 21
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
for the the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
mean.
Regarding Initial Airworthiness the proposal is to use a similar mechanism like
Page 92 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
done in USA when introducing the LSA category. There a limited timeframe
was available, where each aircraft owner had the possibility by simple
paperwork to get his/her aircraft certified as "experimental" LSA with certain
operational limitations to the new category. There was no new checking of
compliance or such, the individual aircraft was accepted on the basis of its
existing operational experience. For most aircraft owners this is fully sufficient.
Secondly, it is proposed to also offer for factory produced Annex II aircraft
already in service to enhance the scope of usability by showing compliance on
the basis of the certification code the aircraft is already certified to, and
upgrading it through the manufacturing company to the ELA category, without
operational limitations. An example would be that an Ultralight, currently
certified under LTF-UL (Germany), or Section S (UK) or UL-2 (Czech) or other
equivalent codes become an LSA aircraft, still following original certification
code, but with enhanced takeoff mass.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Overview of the proposals included in this NPA
p. 5-6
comment 26 comment by: FFVV
response Accepted
On behalf of FFVV.
S 22 is convenient for sailplanes and powered sailplanes, and CS LSA does not
means alleviation of requirements for certification or maintenance of these
aircrafts.
CS-LSA means Light Sport Aeroplanes. This was done voluntarily: as the
commentator rightly points out, the CS-22 is fully satisfactory for sailplanes
and powered sailplanes.
comment 30 comment by: FAA
response Accepted
The NPA states in numerous places that ELA is not a new category of aircraft.
However, the FAA considers SLSA a new category. This was done to provide a
distinction between Experimental LSA and Special LSA, which are under tighter
configuration control by the manufacturer than ELSA. Because EASA states ELA
is process and not a new product, there will be differences between products
developed under the two systems, making transition between ELA and LSA
difficult for manufacturers in US and in Europe. EASA and FAA need to work
together to clearly define how ELA and LSA are related so the requirements
for each are clear to manufacturers seeking approval under both systems.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph (b) 10 on harmonisation with FAA.
comment 31 comment by: FAA
ELA1 appears to be largely compatible with FAA LSA design limitations and
operational limits. However, ELA2 appears to allow more overlap between CS-
Page 93 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
23 and ELA than would be allowed under the FAA LSA system. This may blur
the lines between CS-23 and ELA2, which may cause confusion if EASA
certificated products are to be considered for use in the US under LSA. The
FAA has purposely drawn a clear line of distinction between Part 23 and LSA,
only allowing some existing Part 23 designs to be considered under LSA. Like
EASA, the FAA allows manufacturers to meet a higher standard than required
by the ASTM standards for a particular design if they so choose. However, we
do not give credit for this in their LSA design approval or list the Part 23
standards in the statement of compliance to the ASTM standards. We also do
not allow a new aircraft intended to meet Part 23, and claims credit for Part
23, to be certificated under LSA. FAA does not allow overlap between new Part
23 and new LSA aircraft for new designs. However, EASA ELA2 seems to
overlap Part 23 significantly. EASA needs to produce clear guidance stating
aircraft are to be designed and certificated in one category only. Discussions
need to be held to make sure products designed for import/export are properly
identified as well.
ELA is a different system than the US LSA rule. It is a simplified certification
process and the simplification is mostly relative to organisation approvals. The
TC or RTC will clearly identify the airworthiness code and if appropriate the
categories included in that code. An ELA 2 aeroplane will be certificated to CS-
23.
comment 44 comment by: Kai Bode
Gyroplanes (Gyrocopters) missing: The ELA 1 weight limitation would make
room for a better protected, fully enclosed gyroplane with more than 2
occupants. Celier aviation, for example, have introduced such a model for
three occupants already, the full enclosure providing excellent protection. Even
2-seater gyroplanes today have difficulty fullfilling the weight limitation and at
the same time provide passive occupant safety. The Gyroplane is clearly not a
complex craft and should therefore explicitly be include in the ELA 1 definition,
as well as ELA 2 for larger planes.
response Partially accepted
The commentator is right: gyroplanes were not discussed in the NPA.
Gyroplanes with a maximum take-off mass below 560 kg fall under the remit
of Annex II. As this criterion was considered to encompass the vast majority of
gyroplanes, there was no consideration given to gyroplanes in the NPA. In fall
2008, the Agency was approached by a designer that designs a gyroplane with
a maximum take-off mass of 750 kg. After consultation of the review group,
the Agency considers that the process used in such case should be ELA-2.
Certification codes could be based on VLR or CS-27.
comment 48 comment by: Filippo De Florio
response Noted
No comment has been made.
comment 49 comment by: Filippo De Florio
Page 94 of 446

esponse Noted
No comment has been made.
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 51 comment by: Filippo De Florio
response Noted
Do you really consider sailpanes of MTOM between 1000 and 2000 kg?
The Agency is not expecting that such sailplanes will be offered for
certification. Should this happen, an appropriate process and certification basis
would have to be defined.
comment 67 comment by: Apex Aircraft
response Accepted
Les définitions ELA1 et ELA2 sont rédigées comme suit:
"ELA1 : définition: un aéronef, planeur........"
"ELA2 : définition: un aéronef, planeur........"
Ces définitions sont contradictoires avec le texte :
"ELA n'est pas une nouvelle catégorie d'aéronef...., mais un
nouveau process simplifié....."
Les définitions pourraient être :
"ELA1 : définition: process applicable à un aéronef,
planeur........"
La rédaction des différentes propositions d'amendement au part 21, "aéronefs
... définis au paragraphes 21A.14b) et/ou 21A.14c"
laisse supposer qu'il s'agisse bien d'une catégorie d'aéronef.
(voir par exemple les 21A.96a), 21A.116, 21A.35a)2), 21A.47c), 21A.139c),
21A.163e),21A.307b) et c), subpart L, 21A.432c), ...)
The commentator is right: the explanatory note uses the word definition for
ELA. To be accurate and consistent with the principle that ELA is a process and
not a category, the explantory note should have spoken of the definition of the
applicability of the ELA process. What is called definition in the explanatory
note should have been better called applicability of the process.
comment 68 comment by: Michael GREINER
response Noted
NOTE:
This comment was made against this section of the NPA. This comment and
the response are however only reflected once at page 6 of this CRD in order to
improve readability.
comment 85 comment by: René Fournier
The decision to introduce a better graduation in the regulation of aviation
Page 95 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
products according to the actual complexity of the aircraft or product
concerned is highly desirable.
Indeed, the level of constraints imposed by the original version of Regulation
1702/2003 on TC holders and Production Organisation of small leisure aircraft
were far too cumbersome and ignored the realities of the recreational aviation
community.
From my own experience of TC Holder for small leisure aircraft no longer into
production, the requirement for a quality system to produce spare parts
combined with that of the EASA Form 1 has been a very acute and time
consuming problem.
Subject to the comments and improvements suggested below, it seems to me
that the envisaged ELA 1 and ELA 2 regimes strikes a better balance between
harmonisation of the safety level in the EU and the realities of the leisure and
sport aviation sector.
Finally, I also welcome the fact that aircraft categories ELA 1 and ELA 2 will be
considered as in conformity with ICAO Annex 8.
The Agency thanks the commentator for their support.
The Agency wishes to stress the use of the word process: ELA has not created
categories of aircraft. ELA1 and ELA2 provide new means to achieve
certification for the aircraft they are applicable to. Aircraft using the ELA will
have the same airworthiness certificates as aircraft using the present Part-21
process. ELA1 and ELA2 use existing airworthiness codes and have only
created a new code: CS-LSA. We plan in addition to create a CS-23 Light,
based on FAR-23 at amendment 7.
comment 145 comment by: ENAC
In the introduction it is established that ELA are not new category of aircraft
but simpler new process applicable to no complex aircraft because it is
supposed to identify as ELA aircraft od simple design.
ELA1/ELA2 refer only to weight and general characteristics, but not really
characteristics that could have impact on the certification process (e.g. use of
material, kind of avionics, kind of operations, unusual design, new concept,
etc.)
Consider as example that VLA was applicable only to VFR operation, simple
design, not retractable landing gear, etc.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph (b) 2 on criteria for ELA1 and ELA2.
comment 214 comment by: Aero-Club of Switzerland
The Aero-Club of Switzerland thinks, a Very Light Rotorcraft should not have a
permitted MTOM of 2000 kg, such a weight has nothing to do with "very
light". We suggest a name change and propose the use of "European Light
Helicopter (ELH)". This remark is valid throughout the whole document.
response Not accepted
Page 96 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
The ELA process is only applicable to Very Light Rotorcraft (MTOM less than
600 kg) and to gyroplanes with a maximum take-off mass of 750 kg: the
process is in that case ELA2 as the complexity of such machines does not allow
to accept a certification programme as a means to justify capability to design.
There is no intention to accept VLR up to 2 000 kg: there is a task in the
rulemaking programme to possibly extend the scope of CS-VLR to 750 kg but
with no timeframe defined.
comment 220 comment by: Aero-Club of Switzerland
response Noted
One question from the Aero-Club of Switzerland remains: What will be the
process to be followed for the certification of a turbojet or electric (solar)
powered glider?
The Agency intends to use ELA1.
comment 226 comment by: luciano giannini
response Noted
FIVU's General comment
The Italian Microlight Federation - FIVU - thinks that the proposed changes in
the NPA 2008-07 substantially appear as a involution in respect to the great
and natural evolution of microlight and recreational aviation and is not what
the light aviation community asked for.
We think that a stand-alone European LSA category, compatible with the US-
LSA category, could be the natural solution, in order to answer at the
expectations of pilots, manufacturers farm (uniformity of the market), and fly
schools.
Last but not least, an European LSA category will be decisive to implement an
unique set of rules.
Any other proposal, like ELA 1, could be only a very approximate attempt to
resolve the problems highlight in the present and, probable, future scenarios of
EU recreational aviation. There is a serious risk that the successful light
aviation (represented by the modern microlights) will be killed by the present
proposals.
At the same time, we think that Annex II represent an important and essential
gate entry to the simplest end economic way to get the possibility of fly for
thousands of fans and tens of manufacturers: in other words, the better way to
promote and popularize aeronautical culture.
About that, we believe that Annex II must be keep in force until European
Community will be able to guarantee the same strategic objectives for the
basic microlight sector.
Federazione Italiana Volo Ultraleggero
www.fivu.it
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
Page 97 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 253 comment by: Ronald MEYER
response Noted
Comment 14: Creation of a Certification Specification - Light Sport Aeroplane
(CS-LSA)
Following the philosophy of a self declaration basis, certification has to be
limited to the issue of a "special airworthiness certificate", according to FAA-
LSA:
Eligibility. LSA are eligible for a special airworthiness certificate in the LSA
category
when the applicant provides a copy of the aircraft manufacturer's-
(1) Written operating instructions.
(2) Written maintenance and inspection procedures for the entire aircraft.
(3) Flight training supplement.
(4) Statement of compliance. This must contain:
(a) The identity of the aircraft by make and model, serial number,
class, date of manufacture, and consensus standard used;
(b) A statement that the aircraft meets the provisions of the identified
consensus standard;
(c) A statement that the aircraft conforms to the manufacturer's
design data, using the manufacturer's quality assurance system that
meets the identified consensus standard;
(d) A statement that the manufacturer will make available to any
interested person the following documents that meet the identified
consensus standard:
1 The aircraft's operating instructions;
2 The aircraft's maintenance and inspection procedures for the entire
aircraft; and
3 The aircraft's flight training supplement; and
(e) A statement that the manufacturer will monitor and correct safetyof-flight
issues through the issuance of safety directives and a
continued airworthiness system that meets the identified
consensus standard;
(f) A statement that at the request of the FAA, the manufacturer will
provide unrestricted access to its facilities;
(g) In accordance with a production acceptance test procedure meeting the
applicable consensus standard, a statement that the manufacturer-
1 Ground and flight tested the aircraft;
2 Found the aircraft performance acceptable; and
3 Determined the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
Page 98 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 268 comment by: Gorden WIEGELS
response Accepted
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph“.
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that - probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter -
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in …“. The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Presentations have been changed.
comment 352 comment by: British Gliding Association
response Noted
Overview and Common Items
In order better to understand the stated approach the BGA seeks more clarity
the positions of Qualified Entities and Assessment Bodies, how and by
whom they are approved, their liabilities, who they would answer to, and under
which circumstances.
In particular we could foresee that the legal status of QA's and AB's could well
vary under different national laws. Here in UK, we believe that the Competent
Authority may not look well on delegations of such roles, and in such
circumstances, the NPA provisions may well be less useful here than in other
nations. This can hardly be considered to be a pan-European approach. In our
view the proper development of the scope of QA's and AB's is key to the
success of this welcome approach.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 375 comment by: O. Reinhardt / Flightdesign
response Accepted
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph“.
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that – probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter –
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in …“. The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Presentations have been changed.
comment 391 comment by: Thomas Wendt
Comment 20
Page 5/6 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Overview of the proposals included in this NPA
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph".
Page 99 of 446

esponse Accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that - probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter -
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in ...". The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Presentations have been changed.
comment 420 comment by: Flight Design GmbH Matthias Betsch CEO
response Accepted
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph".
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that - probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter -
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in ...". The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Presentations have been changed.
comment 427 comment by: Light Aircraft Association UK
response Noted
LAA is pleased to see that the definition for ELA1 no longer includes 'a piston
engine installed in...'. This gives flexibility for the future for alternative
powerplant technologies. Although this might potentially allow turbine
engines, the practicalities of gaining an approval on the size and weight of
aircraft involved (and gaining noise and emissions approvals) would deter most
potential applicants. It does, however, open the way for the serious
development of electrically powered aircraft.
The Agency thanks the commentator for their support.
comment 429 comment by: Light Aircraft Association UK
response Accepted
It is not clear in which category a gyroplane MTOM >560kg would fit (currently
Annex II if

esponse Noted
No comment was made.
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 520 comment by: aeroklaus
response Accepted
Comment 20
Page 5/6 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Overview of the proposals included in this NPA
Page 6 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process - ELA 1
Page 7 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process - ELA 2
Page 26/27 B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart B
- 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph“.
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that – probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter –
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in …“. The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Presentations have been changed.
comment 551 comment by: UK CAA
response Noted
Subject/Topic Scope of ELA
NPA
Comment
Section/Page
IV "Overview of the The statement that ELA is not a new category of aircraft,
proposals included but is a new process, might imply that, for modifications,
in this NPA. Page 5 the ELA regime can only be applied to aircraft that were
originally certificated using the ELA process. ELA would not
then be available to older aircraft, including vintage orphan
aircraft. However, it is stated that applicants for the
certification of aircraft that are within the ELA definition
may use the ELA process, or the existing process.
Question
Would the Agency please clarify the applicability of the
proposed ELA process to existing aircraft? Will the owners
of older aircraft that are within the ELA definition have a
choice of regulatory systems? If so, how will split fleets be
regulated?
Designers of aircraft complying with the ELA criteria will be able to make use on
a voluntary basis of the relevant provisions of Part-21 when adopted by the
legislator. The comment relative to split fleet is not completely understood:
electing to use the ELA process will not change systematically the certification
basis. It will help for approval of modifications, repairs and replacement of
parts. The approval of the organisation may change if they wish so.
Page 101 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 555 comment by: UK CAA
ELA 1:
Demonstration of
No requirement for DOA or APDOA
capability for design The proposal to allow Type Certification without a
(page 5)
Design and
DOA/APDOA raises a number of issues:
Production 1. Without a DOA/APDOA the QE, NAA, or EASA will have
Organisation no basis to accept any report or data "without further
Approvals (Page 9) showing" and so will be obliged to review/investigate all
aspects of the design in much greater detail to be satisfied
that compliance has been shown. This is likely to increase
the costs for certification significantly rather than reduce
them.
2. Without a DOA the designer will not have the privilege to
classify changes or to approve repairs or minor
modifications. Every modification and repair will have to be
approved by the Agency; incurring Agency time and
charges.
3. Part 21F and G requirements for production require that
the 21G/21F approval holder has an arrangement with the
DOA responsible for the design of the product. How will this
Part 21F/G requirement be met if the TC Holder does not
have a DOA/APDOA?
4. It is recalled that, during the many discussions about
Airworthiness Directives, the Agency/Commission lawyers
clarified that an Airworthiness Directive issued by EASA is a
mandatory requirement placed on the DOA/APDOA to take
action to restore the design to an acceptable standard. Will
the Agency be able to issue Airworthiness Directives for
ELA1 aircraft if there is no DOA/APDOA in place (and the
Agency has not taken direct responsibility for continued
airworthiness)?
5. As no DOA/APDOA is required for ELA1, the ‘TC Holder'
for an ELA1 aircraft has no obligations under Part 21. Once
the Agency has certificated the type, who takes
responsibility for all the usual in-service monitoring etc, is it
the Agency (as it is for vintage orphan aircraft)?
It is notable that the existing "orphan" aircraft (without
DOA support) are generally vintage types of demonstrably
satisfactory design that have matured to the point where
minimal design support is required for continuing
airworthiness. By contrast the ELA1 aircraft will be "orphans
at birth" that may require substantial design support during
their early years of operation, which may not be available if
the designer is not a DOA and so has no obligation to
provide design support.
6. If there is no DOA/APDOA, what sanctions will the
Agency have to ensure that the designer provides an
acceptable level of design support for continuing
airworthiness? (The Agency could revoke the TC; but that
Page 102 of 446

esponse Partially accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
would penalise aircraft owners for the failings of the
designer).
7. As it is proposed in the NPA that no design approval will
be needed for Type Certification it must follow that no
DOA/APDOA will be required for STCs either. The concept in
the NPA (page 14) that reduction in regulation will be
mitigated by the designer being fully aware of their
responsibilities may be undermined if the aircraft are
extensively modified by other unapproved designers.
8. If there is no DOA/APDOA, what will be the
arrangements for regular airworthiness review meetings of
the kind that are currently routine between DOAs and the
Agency as the means to ensure there is a satisfactory
response to problems encountered in service?
Proposal
All of the issues above would be resolved if the NPA were to
be amended to require a DOA, APDOA, or combined
DOA/POA for all ELA aircraft.
1) The level of involvement will be higher compared to the DOA procedures. The
simplicity of the products and the proximity of NAA/QE to the applicants should
alleviate the concern
2) We are now considering to create simplified AMC to DOA
3) We have checked the rules in Part-21 and the requirement for arrangement
with or for assistance to are related to the TC or design approval holder or DOA
4) ADs are addresssed to the design approval holder. Corrective actions are to
be taken by same.
5) Paragraph 21A.44 define the obligations of the TC holder.
6) Regulation 216/2008 has created a system of fines and periodic penalty
payments (Article 25) that could be used in such cases.
7) The demonstration of capability for STC holders will be done through the
certification programme they will need to present to the agency's approval
8) Such meetings may be held with the TC holder if necessary. The TC holder is
required to analyses occurences and report to the Agency.
Proposal: the Agency recognises that the concept of demonstration of capability
through the certification programme is a help for new comers however render
the approval of modifications burdensome. This is the reason why we are
proposing as an option a DOA with privileges.
comment 557 comment by: UK CAA
ELA 1: Creation of
a Certification
Specification
Page 5
Proposed use of ASTM standards
Under "Overview, ELA 1, Creation of CS-LSA" and also "LSA
5" it is stated that the airworthiness code for aeroplanes up
to 600kg will be ASTM F2245.
Article 5(2)(a) of the EASA Regulation requires that all bases
of certification upon which an EASA Type Certificate is to be
based must provide compliance with the "Essential
Requirements" defined in Annex I of the Regulation. This
Page 103 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
raises the following issues:
1. Has EASA determined that the current version of ASTM
F2245 provides a means of compliance with Annex I?
2. ASTM F2245 is not under the control of the Agency and
so may be revised without warning or notification. How will
EASA ensure that, into the future, Type Certificates, STCs
and other approvals requested on the basis of compliance
with ASTM F2245 are compliant with the Essential
Requirements of Annex I?
3. The ASTM codes are not easily available to the aviation
community, in contrast to other EU codes which can be
downloaded directly from the website. A system is needed
to promote working to the latest version of the code, and to
ensure that the latest version is still acceptable to the
Agency.
4. ASTM F2245 does not appear to define any acceptable
propeller certification standard (FAR-35, JAR-P, CS-P, etc).
Propeller standards should be specified.
5. In the version of ASTM F2245 available to us (version 7),
the possibility of using an engine certified to CS-E, or to an
earlier national code, is not catered for. The Agency should
ensure that the requirements allow the use of European
type certificated engines.
6. The ASTM F2245 LSA approval in the USA is not an ICAO
approval. For an ICAO approval the certificating authority
needs to agree the specific code in detail and declare it to
ICAO and its members as it's adopted requirements that
comply with the Convention.
Proposal
All of the above point to the need for the Agency to produce
its own requirements, rather than simply referencing the
ASTM F2245. It is therefore proposed that the ASTM
standards should not be used because they are not under
the control of the Agency. EASA should define, control and
notify the design standards for European aircraft.
Relative to point 1.
Essential Requirements for initial airworthiness are given in Annex I of the Basic
Regulation. CS-LSA has been checked against CS-VLA and CS-22 to confirm that
no essential omissions exist. In general, it can be stated that structural and
performance aspects match the CS-VLA philosophy. Design and Construction,
Systems and Equipment philosophy match the CS-22 philosophy, applicable for
powered sailplanes. Therefore it can be considered that the EASA certification
basis for LSA complies with Annex I of the Basic Regulation. As in some areas
the missing guidance material could lead to problems, additional information
was introduced in the CS-LSA (for example clarification of demonstration for
fatigue).
For points 2 to 6, please see CRD Part I paragraph (b) 8 on changes to CS-LSA
Page 104 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Proposal: the Agency will continue with CS-LSA with the modifications envisaged
above. It should be noted that the applicability of CS-LSA is limited to
aeroplanes of less than 600 kg for landplanes, and 650 kg for floatplanes and
amphibians.
comment 647 comment by: Martin Josef Warken
response Accepted
Comment 20
Page 5/6 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Overview of the proposals included in this NPA
Page 6 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - ELA 1
Page 7 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - ELA 2
Page 26/27 B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart B - 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph".
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that - probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter -
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in ...". The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Presentations were changed.
comment 693 comment by: Deutscher Aero Club e.V. (DAeC)
response Noted
DAeC misses one substantial modification to Part 21. Presently engine and
propellers have to be certified separately from the airframe which leads to a
high burden extra effort. DAeC proposes to allow the certification of the
propulsion system in combination with the airframe certification process.
It has become increasingly clearer that the requirement for engine and
propellers to be type certificated (as required by Article 5 of the Basic
Regulation) may be a show stopper (Fees and Charges; organisation approvals
for non aviation manufacturers) for LSA, powered sailplanes, ELA1 airships and
possibly VLA. The proposal would be to issue restricted type certificates in such
cases: this will be of no consequences for such aircraft as the draft operational
rules envisage that the only limitations for the use of an aircraft are those
included in its data sheet. Of course, the possibility to issue type certificates
would remain open keeping in mind that the demonstration of capability for
engine and propellers in such aircraft would be a certification plan.
comment 745 comment by: Oliver
Page 105 of 446

esponse Accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Page 6 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - ELA 1
Page 7 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - ELA 2
Page 26/27 B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart B - 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph".
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that - probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter -
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in ...". The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Presentations were changed.
comment 770 comment by: Air Marugan
response Accepted
Comment 20
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph".
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that - probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter -
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in ...". The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Presentations were changed.
comment 779 comment by: Herbert HERGET
Comment 14:
Creation of a Certification Specification - Light Sport Aeroplane (CS-LSA)
Following the philosophy of a self declaration basis, certification has to be
limited to the issue of a "special airworthiness certificate", according to FAA-
LSA: Eligibility. LSA are eligible for a special airworthiness certificate in the
LSA category when the applicant provides a copy of the aircraft
manufacturer's- (1) Written operating instructions. (2) Written maintenance
and inspection procedures for the entire aircraft. (3) Flight training
supplement. (4) Statement of compliance. This must contain: (a) The
identity of the aircraft by make and model, serial number, class, date of
manufacture, and consensus standar d used; (b) A statement that the aircraft
meets the provisions of the identified consensus standard; (c) A statement that
the aircraft conforms to the manufacturer's design data, using the
manufacturer's quality assurance system that meets the identified consensus
standard; (d) A statement that the manufacturer will make available to any
interested person the following documents that meet the identified consensus
standard: 1 The aircraft's operating instr uctions; 2 The aircraft's maintenance
and inspecti on procedures for the entire aircraft; and 3 The aircraft's flight
training supplement; and (e) A statement that the manufacturer will monitor
Page 106 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
and correct safety-of-flight issues through the issuance of safety directives and
a continued airworthiness system that meets the identified consensus
standard; (f) A statement that at the request of the FAA, the manufacturer
will provide unrestricted access to its facilities; (g) In accordance with a
production acceptance test procedure meeting the applicable consensus
standard, a statement that the manufacturer- 1 Ground and flight tested the
aircraft; 2 Found the aircraft performance acceptable; and 3 Determined the
aircraft is in a condition for safe operation.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process
comment 46 comment by: Kai Bode
response Accepted
If Gyroplanes are included, it would make sense to includethe possibility of
collective pitch change of gyroplanes to allow so called jump-take-off capability
(pre-rotation of high intertia rotor to high rotational speed, then disengage
pre-rot-drive and apply positive blade pitch and use rotor inertia for lift-off)
should be included.
Gyroplanes with a maximum take-off mass below 560 kg fall under the remit
of Annex II. As this criterion was considered to encompass the vast majority of
gyroplanes, there was no consideration given to gyroplanes in the NPA. In fall
2008, the Agency was approached by a designer that designs a gyroplane with
a maximum take-off mass of 750 kg. After consultation of the review group,
the Agency considers that the process used in such case should be ELA-2.
Certification codes could be based on VLR or CS-27.
The so-called jump-take-off capability could be the subject of the special
condition.
comment 68 comment by: Michael GREINER
response Noted
NOTE:
This comment was made against this section of the NPA. This comment and
the response are however only reflected once at page 6 of this CRD in order to
improve readability.
comment 133 comment by: Féderation Française de Planeurs Ultralégers motorisés
General comment
Based on its own experience as the biggest european microlight pilot
association and being the french leisure aviation activity showing the highest
rate of growth -currently 13000 pilots- the FFPLUM assesses the general
aviation crisis (outside microlights!) as resulting from the increasing of the
regulatory harassment it experiences from both european and national aviation
authorities rather than from the flying hour increasing costs.
These increased regulations are officially justified by a desire of increasing
flight safety in this leisure activity, but prove to have no practical effect - at
p. 6
Page 107 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
least on safety - except decreasing the number of pilots.
As dealing with aircraft currently outside of the EASA domain, FFPLUM is not
directly concerned by any new regulation being issued by EASA for the "noncomplex
aircraft" within its scope.
However FFPLUM welcomes this initiative, which is likely to release the
pressure currently exerting many Europeans pilots who would like to benefit
from the light regulatory frame microlight aviation is enjoying in many
countries, without complying to the maximum weight and minimum stall speed
limits, which justify these light regulations.
To guarantee the success of this new regulation, the FFPLUM thinks that EASA
showed pusillanimity in its approach of the future certification process,
particularly when it comes to the ELA1 class, which is intended to encompass
the greatest possible number of leisure aircraft.
It is only by setting up a self certification by the manufacturer that the costs of
this process could be drastically reduced and thus support the creativity and
the competition essential to the development of attracting leisure aviation.
Instead of setting up a heavy process of control involving many -costly- third
parties, the Agency could have been satisfied with a survey control and probing
system, reserving it's right to check the declarations of the manufacturers, or
when failure to match the certification codes is suspected.
Thus, the FFPLUM estimate that the evolution suggested, even if it constitutes
for the existing certified aircraft manufacturers a noticable lightening of their
tasks, will be insufficient to stop the decline of the leisure aviation. This is
more than certain when reviewing the currently published proposals related to
licencing and maintenance procedures, which are practically as heavy as what
prevailed before (national legislations), FFPLUM express its large
disappointment of the way those promising new rules are developed.
In such circumstances the FFPLUM members express firmly their clear and
determined choice that aircraft below 450kg MTOW (472,5Kg with recovery
parachute) should remain outside of the scope of EASA , in Annex II. FFPLUM
is very satisfied with the current situation and has no wish whatsoever to see it
change.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 221 comment by: Scandinavian Flyers
response Noted
I will give my support for the ELA process. Good direction for the light aircrafts
and for the whole industry.
The Agency thanks the commenator for their support.
comment 357 comment by: SAMA Swiss Aircraft Maintenance Association
(Creation of a system of standard modifications and standard repairs):
The national practices for 'current' maintenance, including simple modifications
and repairs, are based on FAA AC 43-13(). These practices are also used in
formation and training of maintenance engineers. We have no indications that
the (continued) use of these standards in practical work on non large aircraft
could present a safety risk. If EASA considers that - for formal reasons - it
must create a dedicated CS to the same purpose in the future, it should be
clarified that an NAA shall still accept a reference to AC 43-13 as approved
data in the mean time, even if no correspnding mention is included in the
Page 108 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
original manufacturers maintenance documents.
response Not accepted
Part MA.404 requires that maintenance data is approved by the Agency or by
an approved Part-21 organisation as appropriate.
The creation of the CS is intended to meet this need for Agency approval. The
use of data included in AC 43-13 is only possible today when included in the
manufacturer maintenance documents.
comment 392 comment by: Thomas Wendt
response Noted
No comment was made.
comment 476 comment by: Tegelbeckers
response Noted
Page 6 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process - ELA 1
No comment was made.
comment 706 comment by: Europe Air Sports, VP
EAS opinion is that EASA needs to think, clarify and produce procedures and
simple bureaucratic guidelines how the transition from CS aircraft to ELA
aircraft and vice versa will be possible. If no transitional arrangement will be
offered as an option, the whole effort and process might be not successful,
especially for the ELA 2 category.
Proposal
Develop procedures and guidelines for the transition from CS aircraft to ELA
aircraft and vice versa
response Not accepted
There is no need for transition provisions as proposed by the commentator.
Designers of existing aircraft complying with the ELA criteria will also be able
to make use on a voluntary basis of the relevant provisions of Part-21.
A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
ELA 1
p. 6-7
comment 15 comment by: managing director
Dear Sirs,
I would like to comment on Article 2 / ELA 1 Definitions. GEFA-FLUG is a
certified manufacturer of hotair airships which have a volume of up to 3.000
m³ and can carry between two and four persons. At the time of writing we are
building airships number 48, 50 and 51.
Page 109 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
The 2.550 m³ limitation is insufficient, because todyas hotair airships have a
larger volume to achieve a longer envelope life time.
These airships use (same as the UK manufacturer Cameron Balloons and
Lindstrand Balloons) microlight engines (mainly Rotax) and propellers
(Junkers, Helix) which are unapproved in the understanding of EASA, but are
manufactured under grandfather clauses. If these products are not included in
ELA 1 it will be very difficult to maintain and repair these aircraft respectively
their components. None of todays hotair airship manufacturers are certified
under EASA 145, nor can they afford that.
At the moment GEFA-FLUG employs 20 people, 10 of them are directly
engaged with the development, manufacture or maintenance of hotair airships.
I would very much like to see the limitation rising to 3.400 m³ as with hotair
balloons.
Addendum:
At the next hotair airship world championship in St. Petersburg (this summer)
more or less all of the competitors will fly with airships of more than 2.500 m³.
Best regards
response Accepted
Karl Ludwig Busemeyer
Managing director GEFA-FLUG
BBAC (CAA) inspector class 3, airships included
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(2) and the resulting text.
comment 16 comment by: John DAVIES
response Accepted
The 2500 m 3 upper volume limit for hot air airships is insufficient for sporting
purposes. Modern 2 seat hot-air airships have volumes from 2,265 to 3,400
m 3 . There is no difference in technology, components (e.g. Engine or propeller)
or operational characteristics between the smallest and the largest; the larger
volume allows the airship to be operated at higher altitudes / ambient
temperatures.
These airships generally use microlight engines and propellers which are
unapproved products (in EASA terms). If these airships are not included in ELA
1 it will be extremely difficult to find maintenance and overhaul for their major
components (as none of the maintenance companies require EASA approvals
for there microlight businesses).
The ELA 1 upper volume limit for hot air balloons and hot air airships should be
harmonised at 3,400 m 3
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(2) and the resulting text.
comment 68 comment by: Michael GREINER
Page 110 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
NOTE:
This comment was made against this section of the NPA. This comment and
the response are however only reflected once at page 6 of this CRD in order to
improve readability.
comment 268 comment by: Gorden WIEGELS
response Accepted
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph“.
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that - probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter -
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in …“. The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Presentations have been changed.
comment 286 comment by: Joel DUBOIS
response Accepted
La limite entre ELA1 et ELA2 est fixée à 1000kg, qui est un chiffre rond du
système métrique mais qui ne traduit pas nécessairement la réalité
aéronautique. Il est préférable de fixer cette limite en examinant le poids des
avions actuels de construction simple et éprouvée, fabriqués avec des moteurs
fiables mais lourd et des matériaux bon marché. Une limite de 1200 kg serait
sans doute plus représentative du parc d'avion actuel.
Le maintien de la limite de 1000kg conduira inévitablement les constructeurs à
rechercher des solutions légères en se plaçant aux limites des coéficients de
sécurité réglementaires et donc sans marge supplémentaire et en utilisant des
moteurs légers mais moins fiable que les moteurs éprouvés (continental ou
lycoming) et en ayant reccourt à des matériaux chers tel que la fibre de
carbone. De plus cela prive les avions ELA1 d'une motorisation diesel car plus
lourde et aucune amélioration des pots d'échappement n'est possible.
Bref celà va à l'encontre des objectifs de définir une norme de certification
moins couteuse, à niveau de sécurité égal et respectueuse de l'environnement
Une limite tenant compte du poids de l'avion et de sa vitesse mini et/ou
maximum me semble préférable. Ainsi les avions 4 places à moteur à piston,
train fixe, de 1200kg en charge et ne dépassant pas 200 km/h devrait relever
d'ELA.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(2) and the resulting text.
comment 375 comment by: O. Reinhardt / Flightdesign
response Accepted
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph“.
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that – probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter –
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in …“. The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Page 111 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Presentations have been changed.
comment 394 comment by: Thomas Wendt
response Accepted
Page 6 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - ELA 1
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph".
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that - probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter -
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in ...". The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Presentations have been changed.
comment 426 comment by: Flight Design GmbH Matthias Betsch CEO
response Accepted
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph".
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that - probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter -
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in ...". The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Presentations have been changed.
comment 648 comment by: Martin Josef Warken
Comment 20
Page 5/6 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Overview of the proposals included in this NPA
Page 6 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - ELA 1
Page 7 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - ELA 2
Page 26/27 B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart B - 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph".
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that - probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter -
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in ...". The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Page 112 of 446

esponse Accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Presentations have been changed.
comment 771 comment by: Air Marugan
response Accepted
Comment 20
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph".
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that - probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter -
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in ...". The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Presentations have been changed.
A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
ELA 2
p. 7-8
comment 45 comment by: Kai Bode
response Noted
Gyroplanes (Gyrocopters) missing: The ELA 2 specification should include
gyroplanes explicitly for more than 2 occupants. Gyroplane are non complex
aircraft.
Gyroplanes with a maximum take-off mass below 560 kg fall under the remit
of Annex II. As this criterion was considered to encompass the vast majority of
gyroplanes, there was no consideration given to gyroplanes in the NPA. In fall
2008, the Agency was approached by a designer that designs a gyroplane with
a maximum take-off mass of 750 kg. After consultation of the review group,
the Agency considers that the process used in such case should be ELA-2.
Certification codes could be based on VLR or CS-27.
comment 50 comment by: Filippo De Florio
If the ELA processes could not be advantageous for sales this means that the
TC issued with these processes are TCs of second category?
I believe that this statement is somewhat ambigous
response Not accepted
ELA is a process that allows a simplified process to obtain a TC or RTC as
appropriate. These will not be second category TC or RTC.
comment 57 comment by: Filippo De Florio
I agree to increase the MTOM of VLA above 750kg (850?). I also suggest the
introduction of the U and A cat. as in CS 23, and the review and update of the
crashworthiness requirements (without dynamic tests).
response Partially accepted
Page 113 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(2) and the resulting text.
comment 188 comment by: Ingmar Hedblom
It is noted that there are plans to suggest increased MTOM for CS-VLA. This is
supported since the new CS-LSA is valid up to 600kg there will otherwise be
too little mass difference between these specifications. However a raised mass
value should not be accompanied with more stringent requirements, on the
contrary a review should be performed to see if a number of "CS-23-like"
paragraphs could be more similar to ASTM F2245.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(2), b(8) and the resulting text.
comment 193 comment by: Walter Gessky
response Noted
21A.44 (a) Continuing Airworthiness ELA 1
Comment:
According 21A.14 (c) for an ELA1 aircraft the applicant may elect for
demonstration of capability through approval of a certification programme
detailing the means for compliance demonstration.
According to 21A.44a the holder of a type certificate shall continue to meet the
qualification requirements for eligibility under 21A.14.
It should be clarified, that ELA 1 aircraft meets the qualification
requirements for eligibility under 21A.14, even when the TC holder
does not hold an AP to DOA or DOA.
21A.14 defines specific eligibility criteria for ELA1. When the reference is made
in 21A.44, for ELA1 these are the criteria that are meant and not DOA/POA.
comment 194 comment by: Walter Gessky
Engine and Propeller TC for LSA
Comment:
There shall be no separate TC required for engines and propellers installed in
an ELA 1 aircraft (see also part 22). The airframe manufacturer may takeover
this task. This is common practise in part 22 and the micro light level and is
working well. The technical content of an engine and propeller certification can
be demonstrated also by one organisation with sufficient engineers.
Proposal
Change 21A.15
Add (d)
(d) Application for an ELA 21 type certification may also include engine
and propeller type certification.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(1).
comment 195 comment by: Walter Gessky
21A.47 TC Transfer
Comment:
Page 114 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
According 21A.14 (c) for an ELA1 aircraft the applicant may elect for
demonstration of capability through approval of a certification programme
detailing the means for compliance demonstration.
According to 21A.44a the holder of a type certificate shall continue to meet the
qualification requirements for eligibility under 21A.14.
For transfer of a type certificate to a natural or legal person is only allowed
when the holder undertakes the obligations of 21A.44, and for this purpose its
ability to qualify under the criteria of 21A.14.
It should be clarified, that ELA 1 aircraft meets the qualification
requirements for eligibility under 21A.14, even when the TC holder
does not hold an AP to DOA or DOA.
See also comment to 21A.44.
Please see response to comment No 193.
comment 196 comment by: Walter Gessky
Subpart I, Noise Certificates
Comment:
Determination of the exact noise level is complex and a time and money
consuming issue. The basic principle is that the ICAO noise level must be
fulfilled.
Proposal :
ELA 1 aircraft do not need a type certificate data sheet for noise and a noise
certificate. Noise levels must be demonstrated during certification to show
compliance with the Article 6 requirements.
Add to 21A.41
(a) Existing text.
•(b) By way of derogation from paragraph (a) for aircraft defined in
21A.14(c) instead of the type certificate data sheet for noise the noise
data will we included in the aircraft flight manual limitation section
and verify that the noise level is below the ICAO Annex 16 limits.
Add to Subpart I, 21A.201
"Except for aircraft as defined in 21A.14(c), this ......"
Justification:
a. For ELA 1 aircraft noise certification could be able to state that the
emitted noise is below the ICAO Annex 16 limits. This would reduce the
burden on the applicants for noise tests because e.g. for configuration
where it is obvious that the noise levels are lower, due to new engine
and propeller installation according to the existing rules noise tests has
to be carried out. This would be a problem during winter time where the
adequate weather situations are for longer periods not available.
b. The issuance of a type certificate for noise could be deleted. Noise
data could be notified in the approved section of the FM (limitation
section).
c. Noise certificate could be deleted, when the noise data are mentioned
in the approved section of the FM. ICAO Annex 16 Vol I does not require
a noise certificate. Any approved document which includes the noise
data is acceptable.
response Partially accepted
Environmental Protection is outside the scope of this NPA. Revision of
implementing rules for noise certification should be considered after the
Page 115 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
outcome of NPA 2008-15 is clear.
comment 268 comment by: Gorden WIEGELS
response Accepted
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph“.
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that - probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter -
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in …“. The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Presentations have been changed.
comment 271 comment by: Klaus Erger
response Noted
Page 8 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
Qualified Entities
negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Proposal 1: QE´s shall also be appointed for the Auditing work to obtain DOA
and POA that allows design and production work under ELA 1. This is fully in
line with basic regulation 216/2008 Chapter II Section I Article 20 2(a).
In addition to this, it must be ensured that a common level is achieved for
applicants throughout all the EASA member states. This is mostly the issue
from side of the QE´s, when they are approved and supervised by the
Authority solely. Involvement of the NAA´s because of varying capabilities in
practice shows that this is not the case and this will lead to different safety
levels and unfair competition . This problem can be overcome by a Pan
European QE. It is not the task of the EASA, or this NPA and comments, to
initiate such a Pan European QE, but the effect and usage, when it comes to
existence, must be defined.
Proposal 2: Pan-European QE´s by their pan European nature must be
appointed by the Agency. In case the applicant selects the Pan- European QE,
combined DOA/POA applications will be automatically dealt with by the Agency,
and not through CA´s or NAA´s.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 375 comment by: O. Reinhardt / Flightdesign
response Accepted
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph“.
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that – probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter –
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in …“. The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Presentations have been changed.
Page 116 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 393 comment by: Thomas Wendt
response Accepted
Page 7 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - ELA 2
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph".
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that - probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter -
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in ...". The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Presentations have been changed.
comment 420 comment by: Flight Design GmbH Matthias Betsch CEO
response Accepted
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph".
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that - probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter -
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in ...". The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Presentations have been changed.
comment 430 comment by: Light Aircraft Association UK
The issue of an ICAO compliant Certificate of Airworthiness would be good for
the industry, allowing aircraft to be sold and operated anywhere in the world.
response Partially accepted
We are exploring the issue of non-ICAO RTC in order to be able to issue such
document to US-LSA.
comment 444 comment by: Aero-Club of Switzerland
response Noted
At the Aero-Club of Switzerland we think that 2000 kg MTOM is a bit much for
flying machine which is named "Very Light Rotorcraft".
The ELA process is only applicable to Very Light Rotorcraft (MTOM less than
600 kg) and to gyroplanes with a maximum take-off mass of 750 kg: the
process is in that case ELA2 as the complexity of such machines does not allow
to accept a certification programme as a means to justify capability to design.
There is no intention to accept VLR up to 2 000 kg: there is a task in the
rulemaking programme to possibly extend the scope of CS-VLR to 750 kg but
with no timeframe defined.
comment 477 comment by: Tegelbeckers
Page 117 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Page 7 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process - ELA 2
No comment was made.
comment 529 comment by: Austro Control GmbH
Engine and Propeller TC for LSA
Comment:
There shall be no separate TC required for engines and propellers installed in
LSA aircraft. The airframe manufacturer may takeover this task. This is
common practise on the micro light level and experience is showing that this
approach is satisfactory. The technical content of an engine/propeller
certification can be demonstrated also by one organisation with sufficient
engineers. This may need a number of changes in different requirements. The
proposal is for the existing Part 21.
Proposal
Change 21A.15
Add (d)
(d) Application for an certification within the ELA1 may also include engine and
propeller type certification.
response Partially accepted
It has become increasingly clearer that the requirement for engine and
propellers to be type certificated (as required by Article 5 of the Basic
Regulation) may be a show stopper (Fees and Charges; organisation approvals
for non aviation manufacturers) for LSA, powered sailplanes, ELA1 airships and
possibly VLA. The proposal would be to issue restricted type certificates in such
cases: this will be of no consequences for such aircraft as the draft operational
rules envisage that the only limitations for the use of an aircraft are those
included in its data sheet. Of course, the possibility to issue type certificates
would remain open keeping in mind that the demonstration of capability for
engine and propellers in such aircraft would be a certification plan.
comment 558 comment by: UK CAA
Subject/Topic Compliance with ICAO and Regulation 216/2008
NPA
Section/Page
Comment
Section A.IV; This paragraph highlights that ICAO Annex 8 does not
Further
specify airworthiness standards for aircraft under 750kg.
Considerations However, the NPA does not address the obligation under
"Conformity to Regulation 216/2008 to ensure that all aircraft that are to
ICAO..." bottom be granted a Type Certificate comply with the essential
paragraph, Page 7 requirements for airworthiness set down in Annex I to the
Regulation, regardless of their mass.
Proposal
The NPA/Opinion must ensure that any standards adopted
for ELA comply with the essential requirements in Annex I
of Regulation 216/2008. Or the Opinion must propose that
ELA aircraft be issued with Restricted Type Certificates and
Restricted CofA.
Page 118 of 446

esponse Accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Essential Requirements for initial airworthiness are given in Annex I of the Basic
Regulation. CS-LSA has been checked against CS-VLA and CS-22 to confirm that
no essential omissions exist. In general, it can be stated that structural and
performance aspects match the CS-VLA philosophy. Design and Construction,
Systems and Equipment philosophy match the CS-22 philosophy, applicable for
powered sailplanes. Therefore it can be considered that the EASA certification
basis for LSA complies with Annex I of the Basic Regulation. As in some areas
the missing guidance material could lead to problems, additional information
was introduced in the CS-LSA (for example clarification of demonstration for
fatigue).
comment 559 comment by: UK CAA
Subject/Topic Potential occupancy of ELA2 balloons and the
proposed certification process
NPA
Section/Page
Comment
A. Explanatory Relating to the ‘inconsistency' comment in the first
Note, IV, Further paragraph of the text, there are production hot air balloons
considerations on that can currently take 30 passengers plus 1 or 2 crew.
the ELA process, Thus, the occupancy (and hence potential for loss of life
ELA 2; Page 7 from a single incident) disparity between balloons and all
the other classes of aircraft in the proposed ELA 2 class is
dramatic. The text implies that the regulatory oversight for
ELA 2 balloons will be unchanged from currently. This is
not correct, as ELA 2 proposes a number of alterations from
current practice.
response Not accepted
It has been shown by long certification and service history also before EASA that
the level of safety for products as in ELA 2 is not compromised.
The inherent risk for balloons and airships is definitively lower than e.g.
helicopters, so a higher number of occupants is acceptable.
The accident history doesn’t seem to justify a change of this policy.
comment 601 comment by: klaus M
Comment 20
Page 5/6 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Overview of the proposals included in this NPA
Page 6 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process - ELA 1
Page 7 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process - ELA 2
Page 26/27 B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart B
- 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph".
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that - probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter -
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in ...". The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Page 119 of 446

esponse Accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Presentations have been changed.
comment 618 comment by: European Sailplane Manufacturers
response Accepted
For the definition of ELA 2, especially the problem regarding the "complex
motor-powered-aircraft" see our comment #98.
Please see our reply to comment No 98.
comment 649 comment by: Martin Josef Warken
response Accepted
Comment 20
Page 5/6 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Overview of the proposals included in this NPA
Page 6 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - ELA 1
Page 7 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - ELA 2
Page 26/27 B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart B - 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph".
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that - probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter -
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in ...". The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Presentations have been changed.
comment 673 comment by: DGAC France
1a. COMMENT TO :
ü Explanatory note
1b. AFFECTED PARAGRAPH :
A IV end of page 7, last paragraph of ELA2 block:
2. Comment:
Il est essentiel de définir précisément si les documents de navigabilité ELA1 et
ELA2 seront de niveau OACI. La conformité doit être portée sur les certificats
de navigabilité et sur la fiche de navigabilité.
Courtesy translation:
Page 120 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
The question for the ELA 1 and ELA 2 airworthiness certificate to be or not to
be compliant with ICAO Annex 8 must be determined. This shall be clearly
written on the certificates and also in the data sheets.
response Partially accepted
We may be issuing RTC non-ICAO for CS-LSA aircraft in order to be able to
issue such documents for US-LSA. Other ELA may be ICAO compliant.
comment 772 comment by: Air Marugan
Comment 20
response Accepted
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph".
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that - probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter -
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in ...". The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Presentations have been changed.
A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
Qualified Entities
comment 18 comment by: SHVL Chocen
The idea contained in Basic Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 seems to be
progressive. Nevertheless the Criteria for qualified entities contained in Annex
V. would be hardly complied with by other organizations, than national
authorities.
The requirement of par.1 for the Director and staff responsible for carrying the
checks to exclude anybody who „is involved ...in.....constituents or systems or
in their operations, service provisions or use."
The Czech Republic is an example of small country, but active in e.g. UL or LSA
design and production. Besides NAA there exist here two candidates on the
Q.E.: Technical staff of the Czech Aeroclub (AeCR) and the similar body of
Aeronautical Amateur Association (LAA).
If we refuse the idea of engagement new professional staff members for the
reason of extreme costs, we do not find any expert member of mentioned
bodies, who should not be engaged in operations, service provisions and use.
Par. 2 of Annex V. requires that „the entity and the staff reponsible for
certification...must carry their duties with the greatest possible
professional integrity and technical competence and must be free of any
pressure and incentive.."
By more simple words: these people must be familiar both with the practical
operation and the „scientific" parts of airworthiness as the aerodynamics,
aeroelasticity, fatique, powerplants, crashworthiness.... etc.
Suggest to change the principle of Q.E. The core staff should be the
professional Director, complying with Annex V. requirements, with (two?)
assistants. This staff should be the part of some organization mentioned
supervised by the NAA. The particular Certification Teams should be nominated
according to the particular program / task and external experts from industry,
p. 8
Page 121 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
operational environment and Technical Universities should be involved.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 41 comment by: John Tempest
response Noted
The concept of Qualified Entities is strongly supported.
Proximity of specialist Qualified Entities will no doubt invigorate the light
aircraft industry, and will provide a regulatory function focused on that
industry.
The Agency thanks the commentator for their support
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 52 comment by: Filippo De Florio
response Noted
OK for the QEs provided there are teams sufficently qualified for making a type
certification. Because they are under the control of EASA and/or NAAs there is
the possibility that another ring is added to the certificatiion chain.
I still believe that EASA should obtain the maximum support from the NAAs
also for type certification. QEs should be the exception.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 68 comment by: Michael GREINER
response Noted
NOTE:
This comment was made against this section of the NPA. This comment and
the response are however only reflected once at page 6 of this CRD in order to
improve readability.
comment 75 comment by: Dyn'aéro
Commentaire de la Note explicative de la NPA 2008-07, Paragraphe
4, section Qualified Entities et Competent Authorities
Comments on the explanatory note of the NPA 2008-97, Paragraph 4,
Qualified Entities and Competent Authorities section
Proposition :
Dyn'Aéro propose que soit ajoutée une note comme suit :
"Les vérifications effectuées par la QE seront réalisées conformément au
programme de certification et, quoi qu'il en soit, limitées de la manière
suivantes :
Eléments de structure primaire qui feront l'objet ensuite d'une
obligation d'émission de EASA FORM 1,
Evaluation en vol par un pilote qualifié en vue de déterminer si les
qualités de vol permettent d'obtenir un niveau global de sécurité
satisfaisant dans le domaine d'utilisation de l'aéronef.
Page 122 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Revue de la documentation de l'aéronef par rapport au code technique
de référence,
Par voie de conséquence :
Les éléments de structure secondaire ne feront pas l'objet d'une
vérification spécifique,
La détermination des performances de croisière, des qualités de vol
secondaires non primordiales pour la sécurité dans le cadre de
l'utilisation de l'aéronef ne feront pas l'objet d'une vérification
spécifique."
Raisons :
Malgré l'introduction de la notion d'approbation préalable du programme de
certification, l'étendue des vérifications réelles devant être faite par la QE (ou
CA) n'est pas explicite.
Aussi, et de la même manière que le point précédent, une telle imprécision
est de nature a entraîner des interprétations qui irait à l'encontre des
objectifs du texte.
Il est donc indispensable que le cadre des vérifications de la QE soit clairement
établi.
Dans la mesure où il est envisagé que les EASA FORM 1 soient limités à un
certains nombres d'éléments jugé les plus importants pour la sécurité, il serait
logique de limiter les actions en profondeur de la QE a ces éléments.
Proposal:
Dyn'Aéro proposes to add a note as follows:
"Audits carried out by the QE will be conducted in accordance with the
certification program and, in any event, limited to the following:
Elements of primary structure which will be then a bond issuance of
EASA FORM 1,
Test flight by a qualified pilot to determine whether the flight handling
qualities can get a global safety level meeting in the domain of
operation of the aircraft.
Review of the aircraft documentation compare with the reference
airworthiness code.
And hence,
Elements of secondary structure will not be suitable for a specific audit,
The determination of cruise performances, the secondary handling
qualities without primary importance for safety in connection with the
operation of the aircraft will not be suitable for a specific audit. "
Reasons:
Despite the introduction of the concept of prior approval certification program,
the extent of actual checks to be made by the QE (or CA) is not explicit.
Also, in the same way as the previous item, such vagueness is likely a
result of interpretations that would run counter to the objectives of the
text.
It is therefore imperative that the context of verification of the QE is clearly
established.
Page 123 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Insofar as it is envisaged that the EASA FORM 1 are limited to a certain
number of elements deemed most important for safety, it would make sense to
limit the actions of the QE to these elements.
response Partially accepted
The Agency agrees that ELA certification procedures are needed and will
develop them in due course.
comment 80 comment by: PZL-Austria Handelsagentur
Proposal:
I propose to add a note as follows:
"Audits carried out by the QE will be conducted in accordance with the
certification program and, in any event, limited to the following:
Elements of primary structure which will be then a bond issuance of
EASA FORM 1,
Test flight by a qualified pilot to determine whether the flight handling
qualities can get a global safety level meeting in the domain of
operation of the aircraft.
Review of the aircraft documentation compare with the reference
airworthiness code.
And hence,
Elements of secondary structure will not be suitable for a specific audit,
The determination of cruise performances, the secondary handling
qualities without primary importance for safety in connection with the
operation of the aircraft will not be suitable for a specific audit. "
Reasons:
Despite the introduction of the concept of prior approval certification program,
the extent of actual checks to be made by the QE (or CA) is not explicit.
Also, in the same way as the previous item, such vagueness is likely a
result of interpretations that would run counter to the objectives of the
text.
It is therefore imperative that the context of verification of the QE is clearly
established.
Insofar as it is envisaged that the EASA FORM 1 are limited to a certain
number of elements deemed most important for safety, it would make sense to
limit the actions of the QE to these elements
response Partially accepted
The Agency agrees that ELA certification procedures are needed and will
develop them in due course.
comment 86 comment by: René Fournier
With respect to the Qualified Entities to be appointed, the delegation of tasks
by the Agency or the Competent Authorities should be thoroughly weighted.
Such outsourcing of tasks to private entities should not rigidify the system
through e.g. a too conservative interpretation of Certification Specifications
driven by internal insurance policy consideration. Nor should resorting to such
Page 124 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
entities entail an increase of costs for the stakeholders.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 162 comment by: ENAC
response Noted
The NPA introduces the use of Qualified Entities, although the subject is still
under discussion.
It is not clear what benefit could add to simplify the process. At the moment
the investigation for the certification of the aircraft falling in the proposed
category of ELA is carried out by the Agency and NAA, it is not clear in case of
a simplified process why the use of QEs instead NAA could improve the
efficency of the process.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 167 comment by: Alexander Eich
negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Proposal 1: QE´s shall also be appointed for the Auditing work to obtain DOA
and POA that allows design and production work under ELA 1. This is fully in
line with basic regulation 216/2008 Chapter II Section I Article 20 2(a).
In addition to this, it must be ensured that a common level is achieved for
applicants throughout all the EASA member states. This is mostly the issue
from side of the QE´s, when they are approved and supervised by the
Authority solely. Involvement of the NAA´s because of varying capabilities in
practice shows that this is not the case and this will lead to different safety
levels and unfair competition . This problem can be overcome by a Pan
European QE. It is not the task of the EASA, or this NPA and comments, to
initiate such a Pan European QE, but the effect and usage, when it comes to
existence, must be defined.
Proposal 2: Pan-European QE´s by their pan European nature must be
appointed by the Agency. In case the applicant selects the Pan- European QE,
combined DOA/POA applications will be automatically dealt with by the Agency,
and not through CA´s or NAA´s.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 185 comment by: Ingmar Hedblom
The concept of qualified entities in the certification process is supported.
As mentioned in the NPA this can improve the efficiency of the process and
increase the proximity with applicants. This is especially important for
applicants in countries far from the EASA office location in Cologne. However,
there must be an incitament for applicants to use QE i the form of reduced
EASA and CA charges. QE will normally not work without payment and
Page 125 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
therefore a review of the EASA fees and charging system is urgently needed.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 190 comment by: Walter Gessky
response Noted
A. Explanatory Note IV, qualified entities
Comment:
Use of QE should not be regulated in with this NPA. The allocation of tasks to
qualified entities will be done by the Agency based on MB allocation
procedures. The applicant will pay fees and charges to the Agency for
certification work. For certification task allocated the Agency will compensate
the costs of NAA`s or qualified entities based on the conditions of the service
contract. EU regulations with regard to contracts between EASA and external
parties (NAA`s qualified entities) has to be taken into consideration. In the
Attachments with regard to allocation of tasks only QE are mentioned. It
should be noted that according the basic regulation EASA can allocate
certification tasks to NAA`s and QE`s. this has to be corrected.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 215 comment by: DynAero Iberica
Commentaire de la Note explicative de la NPA 2008-07, Paragraphe 4, section
Qualified Entities et Competent Authorities
Comments on the explanatory note of the NPA 2008-97, Paragraph 4, Qualified
Entities and Competent Authorities section
Proposition :
DynAero Ibérica propose que soit ajoutée une note comme suit :
"Les vérifications effectuées par la QE seront réalisées conformément au
programme de certification et, quoi qu'il en soit, limitées de la manière
suivantes :
• Eléments de structure primaire qui feront l'objet ensuite d'une obligation
d'émission de EASA FORM 1,
• Evaluation en vol par un pilote qualifié en vue de déterminer si les qualités
de vol permettent d'obtenir un niveau global de sécurité satisfaisant dans le
domaine d'utilisation de l'aéronef.
• Revue de la documentation de l'aéronef par rapport au code technique de
référence,
Par voie de conséquence :
• Les éléments de structure secondaire ne feront pas l'objet d'une vérification
spécifique,
• La détermination des performances de croisière, des qualités de vol
secondaires non primordiales pour la sécurité dans le cadre de l'utilisation de
l'aéronef ne feront pas l'objet d'une vérification spécifique."
Raisons :
Malgré l'introduction de la notion d'approbation préalable du programme de
certification, l'étendue des vérifications réelles devant être faite par la QE (ou
CA) n'est pas explicite.
Page 126 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Aussi, et de la même manière que le point précédent, une telle imprécision est
de nature a entraîner des interprétations qui irait à l'encontre des objectifs du
texte.
Il est donc indispensable que le cadre des vérifications de la QE soit clairement
établi.
Dans la mesure où il est envisagé que les EASA FORM 1 soient limités à un
certains nombres d'éléments jugé les plus importants pour la sécurité, il serait
logique de limiter les actions en profondeur de la QE a ces éléments.
Proposal:
DynAero Ibérica proposes to add a note as follows:
"Audits carried out by the QE will be conducted in accordance with the
certification program and, in any event, limited to the following:
• Elements of primary structure which will be then a bond issuance of EASA
FORM 1,
• Test flight by a qualified pilot to determine whether the flight handling
qualities can get a global safety level meeting in the domain of operation of the
aircraft.
• Review of the aircraft documentation compare with the reference
airworthiness code.
And hence,
• Elements of secondary structure will not be suitable for a specific audit,
• The determination of cruise performances, the secondary handling qualities
without primary importance for safety in connection with the operation of the
aircraft will not be suitable for a specific audit. "
Reasons:
Despite the introduction of the concept of prior approval certification program,
the extent of actual checks to be made by the QE (or CA) is not explicit.
Also, in the same way as the previous item, such vagueness is likely a result of
interpretations that would run counter to the objectives of the text.
It is therefore imperative that the context of verification of the QE is clearly
established.
Insofar as it is envisaged that the EASA FORM 1 are limited to a certain
number of elements deemed most important for safety, it would make sense to
limit the actions of the QE to these elements.
response Partially accepted
The Agency agrees that ELA certification procedures are needed and will
develop them in due course.
comment 222 comment by: Aero-Club of Switzerland
The Aero-Club of Switzerland welcomes the idea of Qualified Entities. However,
the Organisation would be happier with a subordination of such QE under the
Agency.
response Partially accepted
The Agency thanks the commentator for their support.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 235 comment by: Flight Design GmbH Matthias Betsch CEO
Page 127 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Proposal 1: QE´s shall also be appointed for the Auditing work to obtain DOA
and POA that allows design and production work under ELA 1. This is fully in
line with basic regulation 216/2008 Chapter II Section I Article 20 2(a).
In addition to this, it must be ensured that a common level is achieved for
applicants throughout all the EASA member states. This is mostly the issue
from side of the QE´s, when they are approved and supervised by the
Authority solely. Involvement of the NAA´s because of varying capabilities in
practice shows that this is not the case and this will lead to different safety
levels and unfair competition . This problem can be overcome by a Pan
European QE. It is not the task of the EASA, or this NPA and comments, to
initiate such a Pan European QE, but the effect and usage, when it comes to
existence, must be defined.
Proposal 2: Pan-European QE´s by their pan European nature must be
appointed by the Agency. In case the applicant selects the Pan- European QE,
combined DOA/POA applications will be automatically dealt with by the Agency,
and not through CA´s or NAA´s.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 255 comment by: Gorden WIEGELS
negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Proposal 1: QE´s shall also be appointed for the Auditing work to obtain DOA
and POA that allows design and production work under ELA 1. This is fully in
line with basic regulation 216/2008 Chapter II Section I Article 20 2(a).
In addition to this, it must be ensured that a common level is achieved for
applicants throughout all the EASA member states. This is mostly the issue
from side of the QE´s, when they are approved and supervised by the
Authority solely. Involvement of the NAA´s because of varying capabilities in
practice shows that this is not the case and this will lead to different safety
levels and unfair competition . This problem can be overcome by a Pan
European QE. It is not the task of the EASA, or this NPA and comments, to
initiate such a Pan European QE, but the effect and usage, when it comes to
existence, must be defined.
Proposal 2: Pan-European QE´s by their pan European nature must be
appointed by the Agency. In case the applicant selects the Pan- European QE,
combined DOA/POA applications will be automatically dealt with by the Agency,
and not through CA´s or NAA´s.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 288 comment by: Karg
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
Page 128 of 446

eaching far enough.
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Proposal 1: QE´s shall also be appointed for the Auditing work to obtain DOA
and POA that allows design and production work under ELA 1. This is fully in
line with basic regulation 216/2008 Chapter II Section I Article 20 2(a).
In addition to this, it must be ensured that a common level is achieved for
applicants throughout all the EASA member states. This is mostly the issue
from side of the QE´s, when they are approved and supervised by the
Authority solely. Involvement of the NAA´s because of varying capabilities in
practice shows that this is not the case and this will lead to different safety
levels and unfair competition. This problem can be overcome by a Pan
European QE. It is not the task of the EASA, or this NPA and comments, to
initiate such a Pan European QE, but the effect and usage, when it comes to
existence, must be defined.
Proposal 2: Pan-European QE´s by their pan European nature must be
appointed by the Agency. In case the applicant selects the Pan- European QE,
combined DOA/POA applications will be automatically dealt with by the Agency,
and not through CA´s or NAA´s.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 309 comment by: TECNAM
negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Proposal 1: QE´s shall also be appointed for the Auditing work to obtain DOA
and POA that allows design and production work under ELA 1. This is fully in
line with basic regulation 216/2008 Chapter II Section I Article 20 2(a).
In addition to this, it must be ensured that a common level is achieved for
applicants throughout all the EASA member states. This is mostly the issue
from side of the QE´s, when they are approved and supervised by the
Authority solely. Involvement of the NAA´s because of varying capabilities in
practice shows that this is not the case and this will lead to different safety
levels and unfair competition . This problem can be overcome by a Pan
European QE. It is not the task of the EASA, or this NPA and comments, to
initiate such a Pan European QE, but the effect and usage, when it comes to
existence, must be defined.
Proposal 2: Pan-European QE´s by their pan European nature must be
appointed by the Agency. In case the applicant selects the Pan- European QE,
combined DOA/POA applications will be automatically dealt with by the Agency,
and not through CA´s or NAA´s.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 343 comment by: Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Switzerland
Qualified entities:
It is mentioned that "the concept is that QEs would be derived from existing or
new Sporting organisa-tion.".
Comments:
Page 129 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
The EASA accreditation procedure for the QEs must be public to ensure
transparency and allow free competition. Clearly defined AMC/GM are
considered necessary.
According to recent accident investigation report1, some sport
organizations have not the neces-sary resources and competences.
Such conditions lead to a low level of certitude that the require-ments
are met. This is confirmed by the review of the technical gaps found in
the accident investiga-tions (see appendix I, entered in the file with all
FOCA comments attached to the title page).
In relation with attachment 3, we consider as a fundamental issue that
the confirmation of the compliance (equivalent to CVE) as done by the
NAA of QE is performed by qualified personnel with clearly defined
responsibility. Standardization of the required level of qualification is
required; to this scope, also in this case, adequate AMC/GM are
required.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 361 comment by: O. Reinhardt / Flightdesign
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Proposal 1: QE´s shall also be appointed for the Auditing work to obtain DOA
and POA that allows design and production work under ELA 1. This is fully in
line with basic regulation 216/2008 Chapter II Section I Article 20 2(a).
In addition to this, it must be ensured that a common level is achieved for
applicants throughout all the EASA member states. This is mostly the issue
from side of the QE´s, when they are approved and supervised by the
Authority solely. Involvement of the NAA´s because of varying capabilities in
practice shows that this is not the case and this will lead to different safety
levels and unfair competition . This problem can be overcome by a Pan
European QE. It is not the task of the EASA, or this NPA and comments, to
initiate such a Pan European QE, but the effect and usage, when it comes to
existence, must be defined.
Proposal 2: Pan-European QE´s by their pan European nature must be
appointed by the Agency. In case the applicant selects the Pan- European QE,
combined DOA/POA applications will be automatically dealt with by the Agency,
and not through CA´s or NAA´s.
Comment is valid also for the who does what table ELA 1; group
"organisational approval"
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 380 comment by: Thomas Wendt
Comment 1
Page 8 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - Qualified Entities
Page 130 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Proposal 1: QE´s shall also be appointed for the Auditing work to obtain DOA
and POA that allows design and production work under ELA 1. This is fully in
line with basic regulation 216/2008 Chapter II Section I Article 20 2(a).
In addition to this, it must be ensured that a common level is achieved for
applicants throughout all the EASA member states. This is mostly the issue
from side of the QE´s, when they are approved and supervised by the
Authority solely. Involvement of the NAA´s because of varying capabilities in
practice shows that this is not the case and this will lead to different safety
levels and unfair competition . This problem can be overcome by a Pan
European QE. It is not the task of the EASA, or this NPA and comments, to
initiate such a Pan European QE, but the effect and usage, when it comes to
existence, must be defined.
Proposal 2: Pan-European QE´s by their pan European nature must be
appointed by the Agency. In case the applicant selects the Pan- European QE,
combined DOA/POA applications will be automatically dealt with by the Agency,
and not through CA´s or NAA´s.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 403 comment by: TECNAM
negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Proposal 1: QE´s shall also be appointed for the Auditing work to obtain DOA
and POA that allows design and production work under ELA 1. This is fully in
line with basic regulation 216/2008 Chapter II Section I Article 20 2(a).
In addition to this, it must be ensured that a common level is achieved for
applicants throughout all the EASA member states. This is mostly the issue
from side of the QE´s, when they are approved and supervised by the
Authority solely. Involvement of the NAA´s because of varying capabilities in
practice shows that this is not the case and this will lead to different safety
levels and unfair competition . This problem can be overcome by a Pan
European QE. It is not the task of the EASA, or this NPA and comments, to
initiate such a Pan European QE, but the effect and usage, when it comes to
existence, must be defined.
Proposal 2: Pan-European QE´s by their pan European nature must be
appointed by the Agency. In case the applicant selects the Pan- European QE,
combined DOA/POA applications will be automatically dealt with by the Agency,
and not through CA´s or NAA´s.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 412 comment by: CAA CZ
QE for design issues: There is the proximity concept specified in the document
Page 131 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
for the area covered by the NPA. The CAA CZ finds this principle very
important. The experience shows that it is necessary for the design
organisation (applicant) and the supervisory body to be in close contact. In
addition, the communication between specified bodies is very frequent and
language problems and national differences could make the communication
difficult. However, according to our understanding, the interpretation of the
requirements as proposed would allow selecting a QE from the list of approved
QEs without any other limitation; there is no requirement for the condition of
proximity of QE. Therefore, we strongly recommend to specify that the design
organisations and applicants for DOA are supervised by the NAA or QE of the
relevant state of the organisation/applicant.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 433 comment by: Light Aircraft Association UK
response Noted
LAA is keen to assist EASA in developing these working procedures.
The Agency thanks the commentator for their offer. The Agency will come back
to the commentator when the Management Board adopts the policy for using
QE.
comment 446 comment by: Peter VON BURG
The proposal is in the right direction, but not far enought. The described QE
does not have any delegated rights.
QE should also be appointed to audit DOA and POA for ELA1 aircrafts.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 449 comment by: www.fascination-pilots.de
negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Proposal 1: QE´s shall also be appointed for the Auditing work to obtain DOA
and POA that allows design and production work under ELA 1. This is fully in
line with basic regulation 216/2008 Chapter II Section I Article 20 2(a).
In addition to this, it must be ensured that a common level is achieved for
applicants throughout all the EASA member states. This is mostly the issue
from side of the QE´s, when they are approved and supervised by the
Authority solely. Involvement of the NAA´s because of varying capabilities in
practice shows that this is not the case and this will lead to different safety
levels and unfair competition . This problem can be overcome by a Pan
European QE. It is not the task of the EASA, or this NPA and comments, to
initiate such a Pan European QE, but the effect and usage, when it comes to
existence, must be defined.
Proposal 2: Pan-European QE´s by their pan European nature must be
appointed by the Agency. In case the applicant selects the Pan- European QE,
Page 132 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
combined DOA/POA applications will be automatically dealt with by the Agency,
and not through CA´s or NAA´s.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 467 comment by: Tegelbeckers
Comment 1
Page 8 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
Qualified Entities
negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Proposal 1: QE´s shall also be appointed for the Auditing work to obtain DOA
and POA that allows design and production work under ELA 1. This is fully in
line with basic regulation 216/2008 Chapter II Section I Article 20 2(a).
In addition to this, it must be ensured that a common level is achieved for
applicants throughout all the EASA member states. This is mostly the issue
from side of the QE´s, when they are approved and supervised by the
Authority solely. Involvement of the NAA´s because of varying capabilities in
practice shows that this is not the case and this will lead to different safety
levels and unfair competition . This problem can be overcome by a Pan
European QE. It is not the task of the EASA, or this NPA and comments, to
initiate such a Pan European QE, but the effect and usage, when it comes to
existence, must be defined.
Proposal 2: Pan-European QE´s by their pan European nature must be
appointed by the Agency. In case the applicant selects the Pan- European QE,
combined DOA/POA applications will be automatically dealt with by the Agency,
and not through CA´s or NAA´s.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 485 comment by: light-wings Oliver Liedmann
negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Proposal 1: QE´s shall also be appointed for the Auditing work to obtain DOA
and POA that allows design and production work under ELA 1. This is fully in
line with basic regulation 216/2008 Chapter II Section I Article 20 2(a).
In addition to this, it must be ensured that a common level is achieved for
applicants throughout all the EASA member states. This is mostly the issue
from side of the QE´s, when they are approved and supervised by the
Authority solely. Involvement of the NAA´s because of varying capabilities in
practice shows that this is not the case and this will lead to different safety
levels and unfair competition . This problem can be overcome by a Pan
European QE. It is not the task of the EASA, or this NPA and comments, to
initiate such a Pan European QE, but the effect and usage, when it comes to
existence, must be defined.
Proposal 2: Pan-European QE´s by their pan European nature must be
appointed by the Agency. In case the applicant selects the Pan- European QE,
Page 133 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
combined DOA/POA applications will be automatically dealt with by the Agency,
and not through CA´s or NAA´s.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 501 comment by: aeroklaus
Comment 1
Page 8 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
Qualified Entities
negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Proposal 1: QE´s shall also be appointed for the Auditing work to obtain DOA
and POA that allows design and production work under ELA 1. This is fully in
line with basic regulation 216/2008 Chapter II Section I Article 20 2(a).
In addition to this, it must be ensured that a common level is achieved for
applicants throughout all the EASA member states. This is mostly the issue
from side of the QE´s, when they are approved and supervised by the
Authority solely. Involvement of the NAA´s because of varying capabilities in
practice shows that this is not the case and this will lead to different safety
levels and unfair competition . This problem can be overcome by a Pan
European QE. It is not the task of the EASA, or this NPA and comments, to
initiate such a Pan European QE, but the effect and usage, when it comes to
existence, must be defined.
Proposal 2: Pan-European QE´s by their pan European nature must be
appointed by the Agency. In case the applicant selects the Pan- European QE,
combined DOA/POA applications will be automatically dealt with by the Agency,
and not through CA´s or NAA´s.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 552 comment by: UK CAA
Subject/Topic Use of Qualified Entities
NPA
Section/Page
Comment
Part A - Section IV, Reference is made in the NPA to the new Essential
Qualified Entities; Requirements for Qualified Entities as set out in the new
Fees and Charges EASA Regulation, and the expectation that existing Sporting
Section V, 4(b), Organisations will apply for these approvals. Reference is
Equity & fairness also made to the current structure of the Fees & Charges
Regulation.
The use of Qualified Entities proposed in the NPA raises a
number of regulatory and practical issues:
1. The possible use of Qualified Entities by the Agency
raises a number of wider issues of importance both to the
Agency and to NAAs that are currently being addressed at
the EASA Management Board level. These issues go beyond
the scope of this particular NPA, and need to be fully
Page 134 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
analysed before any final decisions are taken with regard to
the use of Qualified Entities.
2. It is usual for the existing Sporting Organisations to
assist designers and constructors with the design of their
aircraft and with the analysis to justify compliance with the
relevant standards. It is noted that the Essential
Requirements for Qualified Entities expressly forbid the
giving of such assistance, and therefore a distinct change of
culture/behaviour, and internal separation of activities and
responsibilities, may be required by some existing
organisations if they wish to become QEs.
3. It should be made clear in the NPA that there will be an
accreditation process for the QEs for initial qualification and
that subsequently they will be subject to the Agency's
standardisation process.
4. Is there any intention to limit the scope of QEs for Type
Certification? e.g. To aircraft designed in their own country
of business.
5. What will be the implications if there are no applications
for QE status in some countries? Will the citizens of those
States still be able to have ELA aircraft?
6. Will EASA's policy on QEs limit the number of QEs (e.g.
one per Member State), or will any number of applicants
with the required capability be granted QE status?
7. Currently, the Fees & Charges Regulation specifies that
only the Agency may charge for certification tasks. NAAs
are prohibited from charging applicants and so most NAAs
have entered into contracts with EASA. The applicant pays
EASA and EASA carries out the work or pays NAAs to do so.
Assuming that Qualified Entities will not be in a position to
provide their services free of charge, the only practical
solution would appear to be for the Qualified Entities to be
under contract to the Agency - as the NAAs are. This raises
the prospect for EASA of having to manage contracts with
every Qualified Entity in Europe and of employing staff to
do so. The financial basis of the Agency will make it
necessary for EASA to recover its management and
administration costs from the aircraft designers and
manufacturers in addition to the costs of employing the QEs
under contract.
7. Potential for the loss of QEs.
EASA can generally assume that the NAAs will remain in
place and available to assist the Agency to some extent.
This is because most NAAs are statutory bodies that cannot
simply cease operating at short notice. In contrast,
Qualified Entities may cease trading voluntarily at any time,
or may be forced to do so due to financial insolvency,
increased liability or other factors. This raises the prospect
for EASA of potentially losing the use of a QE at short
Page 135 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
notice and having to commit its own staff to continue the
work. The relevant NAA may no longer be in a position to
help if it has reduced its resources in response to the
previous re-allocation of work to the QE.
The possibility of losing Qualified Entities and the
consequent effects on the Agency, the NAAs and the GA
Community should be included in the impact assessment.
comment 581 comment by: klaus M
Comment 1
Page 8 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
Qualified Entities
negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Proposal 1: QE´s shall also be appointed for the Auditing work to obtain DOA
and POA that allows design and production work under ELA 1. This is fully in
line with basic regulation 216/2008 Chapter II Section I Article 20 2(a).
In addition to this, it must be ensured that a common level is achieved for
applicants throughout all the EASA member states. This is mostly the issue
from side of the QE´s, when they are approved and supervised by the
Authority solely. Involvement of the NAA´s because of varying capabilities in
practice shows that this is not the case and this will lead to different safety
levels and unfair competition . This problem can be overcome by a Pan
European QE. It is not the task of the EASA, or this NPA and comments, to
initiate such a Pan European QE, but the effect and usage, when it comes to
existence, must be defined.
Proposal 2: Pan-European QE´s by their pan European nature must be
appointed by the Agency. In case the applicant selects the Pan- European QE,
combined DOA/POA applications will be automatically dealt with by the Agency,
and not through CA´s or NAA´s.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 603 comment by: Cessna Aircraft Company
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Proposal 1: QE´s shall also be appointed for the Auditing work to obtain DOA
and POA that allows design and production work under ELA 1. This is fully in
line with basic regulation 216/2008 Chapter II Section I Article 20 2(a). In
addition to this, it must be ensured that a common level is achieved for
applicants throughout all the EASA member states. This problem can be
overcome by a Pan European QE. Pan-European QE´s by their pan European
nature must be appointed by the Agency. In cases where the applicant selects
the Pan- European QE, combined DOA/POA applications will be automatically
Page 136 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
dealt with by the Agency, and not through CA´s or NAA´s.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 615 comment by: European Sailplane Manufacturers
response Noted
The proposed inclusion of qualified entities (QE) might be an important
improvement for small companies from the perspective of the European
sailplane manufacturers.
Nevertheless this can only be improving the situation if this is coupled for the
applicant to a reduction of administrative burden in his daily work.
Details which tasks may be completed by the QE and which tasks could be
done by EASA or NAA must not be the applicants problem.
Ideally he would have to deal only with one counter-part and everything should
be "behind the scenes" for him.
Only such a system could make certification of products or organisations more
efficient and better viable for small companies.
Therefore the QE must be given the possiility to offer this "full service" and
ideally this would be regiaonal available, in the language the applicant chooses
and financially acceptable.
It might be unfair to say but exactly this was meant when the sailplane
manufacturers asked about a European counter-piece for the FAA regional
offices after EASA introduction.
The answer given in 2003 was "No" as EASA is meant to be centralised.
If the QE can now bring back such a regional service this has to been
applauded.
Hopefully the new system can enable the QE to work in a financial context that
they can exist, do the important safety assessment but are bot flooded by
myriad legal contraints to become "mini authorities" on their own.
Also it is very important that the applicant has the right to choose "his" QE for
the regarding certification task.
This hopefully can spur a kind of competition between the QE where the most
efficient working ones will get the tasks.
Additionally it has to be added that in the last years there have been cases
where EASA was not able to offer the required certification services. The
proposed QE could be an option how this certification work could in the future
been done fast and efficiently.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 625 comment by: Martin Josef Warken
Comment 1
Page 8 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - Qualified Entities
Page 137 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Proposal 1: QE´s shall also be appointed for the Auditing work to obtain DOA
and POA that allows design and production work under ELA 1. This is fully in
line with basic regulation 216/2008 Chapter II Section I Article 20 2(a).
In addition to this, it must be ensured that a common level is achieved for
applicants throughout all the EASA member states. This is mostly the issue
from side of the QE´s, when they are approved and supervised by the
Authority solely. Involvement of the NAA´s because of varying capabilities in
practice shows that this is not the case and this will lead to different safety
levels and unfair competition . This problem can be overcome by a Pan
European QE. It is not the task of the EASA, or this NPA and comments, to
initiate such a Pan European QE, but the effect and usage, when it comes to
existence, must be defined.
Proposal 2: Pan-European QE´s by their pan European nature must be
appointed by the Agency. In case the applicant selects the Pan- European QE,
combined DOA/POA applications will be automatically dealt with by the Agency,
and not through CA´s or NAA´s.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 658 comment by: EAA
Page 8 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
Qualified Entities
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Proposal 1: QE´s shall also be appointed for the Auditing work to obtain DOA
and POA that allows design and production work under ELA 1. This is fully in
line with basic regulation 216/2008 Chapter II Section I Article 20 2(a). In
addition to this, it must be ensured that a common level is achieved for
applicants throughout all the EASA member states. This problem can be
overcome by a Paneuropean QE. Paneuropean QE´s by their Paneuropean
nature must be appointed by the Agency. In case the applicant selects the
Paneuropean QE, combined DOA/POA applications will be automatically dealt
with by the Agency, and not through individual CAs or NAAs..
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 682 comment by: Evektor
EVEKTOR proposal: detail definition of Qualified entities "independance" would
be necessary.
Note: we can use explanation similar to CVE
response Partially accepted
Page 138 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 702 comment by: procomposite
negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Proposal 1: QE´s shall also be appointed for the Auditing work to obtain DOA
and POA that allows design and production work under ELA 1. This is fully in
line with basic regulation 216/2008 Chapter II Section I Article 20 2(a).
In addition to this, it must be ensured that a common level is achieved for
applicants throughout all the EASA member states. This is mostly the issue
from side of the QE´s, when they are approved and supervised by the
Authority solely. Involvement of the NAA´s because of varying capabilities in
practice shows that this is not the case and this will lead to different safety
levels and unfair competition . This problem can be overcome by a Pan
European QE. It is not the task of the EASA, or this NPA and comments, to
initiate such a Pan European QE, but the effect and usage, when it comes to
existence, must be defined.
Proposal 2: Pan-European QE´s by their pan European nature must be
appointed by the Agency. In case the applicant selects the Pan- European QE,
combined DOA/POA applications will be automatically dealt with by the Agency,
and not through CA´s or NAA´s.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 707 comment by: Europe Air Sports, VP
response Noted
EAS opinion is that EASA needs to think, clarify and produce procedures and
simple bureaucratic guidelines how the transition from CS aircraft to ELA
aircraft and vice versa will be possible. If no transitional arrangement will be
offered as an option, the whole effort and process might be not successful,
especially for the ELA 2 category.
Proposal
Develop procedures and guidelines for the transition from CS aircraft to ELA
aircraft and vice versa
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 725 comment by: Oliver
negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Proposal 1: QE´s shall also be appointed for the Auditing work to obtain DOA
and POA that allows design and production work under ELA 1. This is fully in
line with basic regulation 216/2008 Chapter II Section I Article 20 2(a).
In addition to this, it must be ensured that a common level is achieved for
applicants throughout all the EASA member states. This is mostly the issue
Page 139 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
from side of the QE´s, when they are approved and supervised by the
Authority solely. Involvement of the NAA´s because of varying capabilities in
practice shows that this is not the case and this will lead to different safety
levels and unfair competition . This problem can be overcome by a Pan
European QE. It is not the task of the EASA, or this NPA and comments, to
initiate such a Pan European QE, but the effect and usage, when it comes to
existence, must be defined.
Proposal 2: Pan-European QE´s by their pan European nature must be
appointed by the Agency. In case the applicant selects the Pan- European QE,
combined DOA/POA applications will be automatically dealt with by the Agency,
and not through CA´s or NAA´s.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 751 comment by: Air Marugan
Comment 1
negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Proposal 1: QE´s shall also be appointed for the Auditing work to obtain DOA
and POA that allows design and production work under ELA 1. This is fully in
line with basic regulation 216/2008 Chapter II Section I Article 20 2(a).
In addition to this, it must be ensured that a common level is achieved for
applicants throughout all the EASA member states. This is mostly the issue
from side of the QE´s, when they are approved and supervised by the
Authority solely. Involvement of the NAA´s because of varying capabilities in
practice shows that this is not the case and this will lead to different safety
levels and unfair competition . This problem can be overcome by a Pan
European QE. It is not the task of the EASA, or this NPA and comments, to
initiate such a Pan European QE, but the effect and usage, when it comes to
existence, must be defined.
Proposal 2: Pan-European QE´s by their pan European nature must be
appointed by the Agency. In case the applicant selects the Pan- European QE,
combined DOA/POA applications will be automatically dealt with by the Agency,
and not through CA´s or NAA´s.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
Competent Authorities
p. 8-9
comment 68 comment by: Michael GREINER
NOTE:
This comment was made against this section of the NPA. This comment and
the response are however only reflected once at page 6 of this CRD in order to
Page 140 of 446

esponse Noted
improve readability.
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 75 comment by: Dyn'aéro
Commentaire de la Note explicative de la NPA 2008-07, Paragraphe
4, section Qualified Entities et Competent Authorities
Comments on the explanatory note of the NPA 2008-97, Paragraph 4,
Qualified Entities and Competent Authorities section
Proposition :
Dyn'Aéro propose que soit ajoutée une note comme suit :
"Les vérifications effectuées par la QE seront réalisées conformément au
programme de certification et, quoi qu'il en soit, limitées de la manière
suivantes :
Eléments de structure primaire qui feront l'objet ensuite d'une
obligation d'émission de EASA FORM 1,
Evaluation en vol par un pilote qualifié en vue de déterminer si les
qualités de vol permettent d'obtenir un niveau global de sécurité
satisfaisant dans le domaine d'utilisation de l'aéronef.
Revue de la documentation de l'aéronef par rapport au code technique
de référence,
Par voie de conséquence :
Les éléments de structure secondaire ne feront pas l'objet d'une
vérification spécifique,
La détermination des performances de croisière, des qualités de vol
secondaires non primordiales pour la sécurité dans le cadre de
l'utilisation de l'aéronef ne feront pas l'objet d'une vérification
spécifique."
Raisons :
Malgré l'introduction de la notion d'approbation préalable du programme de
certification, l'étendue des vérifications réelles devant être faite par la QE (ou
CA) n'est pas explicite.
Aussi, et de la même manière que le point précédent, une telle imprécision
est de nature a entraîner des interprétations qui irait à l'encontre des
objectifs du texte.
Il est donc indispensable que le cadre des vérifications de la QE soit clairement
établi.
Dans la mesure où il est envisagé que les EASA FORM 1 soient limités à un
certains nombres d'éléments jugé les plus importants pour la sécurité, il serait
logique de limiter les actions en profondeur de la QE a ces éléments.
Proposal:
Dyn'Aéro proposes to add a note as follows:
"Audits carried out by the QE will be conducted in accordance with the
certification program and, in any event, limited to the following:
Elements of primary structure which will be then a bond issuance of
Page 141 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
EASA FORM 1,
Test flight by a qualified pilot to determine whether the flight handling
qualities can get a global safety level meeting in the domain of
operation of the aircraft.
Review of the aircraft documentation compare with the reference
airworthiness code.
And hence,
Elements of secondary structure will not be suitable for a specific audit,
The determination of cruise performances, the secondary handling
qualities without primary importance for safety in connection with the
operation of the aircraft will not be suitable for a specific audit. "
Reasons:
Despite the introduction of the concept of prior approval certification program,
the extent of actual checks to be made by the QE (or CA) is not explicit.
Also, in the same way as the previous item, such vagueness is likely a
result of interpretations that would run counter to the objectives of the
text.
It is therefore imperative that the context of verification of the QE is clearly
established.
Insofar as it is envisaged that the EASA FORM 1 are limited to a certain
number of elements deemed most important for safety, it would make sense to
limit the actions of the QE to these elements.
response Partially accepted
The level of involvement of the Agency and the qualified entity will be defined
by a future rulemaking task.
comment 272 comment by: Klaus Erger
Page 9 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
Design and Production Organization Approvals
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
response Partially accepted
Page 142 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraph (b) 3 on demonstration of
capability for design.
comment 683 comment by: Evektor
response Accepted
EVEKTOR position: 3 row- typist's error "state"
The Agency thanks the commentator for pointing out the mistake.
A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
ELA: Who does what?
comment 68 comment by: Michael GREINER
response Noted
NOTE:
This comment was made against this section of the NPA. This comment and
the response are however only reflected once at page 6 of this CRD in order to
improve readability.
comment 88 comment by: René Fournier
response Noted
The proposed work organisation reflected in the chart adds clarity on who does
what.
In the ELA 1 Chart, I welcome the statement that a specific procedure will be
defined to limit the burden on applicants for minor changes to TC. If not
imposed by the basic regulation, I however wonder if approval of minor repairs
on individual aircraft would not be better placed at the level of the Competent
Authorities. For the sake of clarity, the reference to Article 15 of Regulation
1592/2002 should also be updated by reference to Regulation No. 216/2008.
The charts that had been provided were to illustrate how the process could
work. However, the use of QE is not yet possible because the Management
Board has not yet adopted the necessary policy. Please refer to CRD 2008-07
Part I paragraph (b) 6.
comment 240 comment by: Ronald MEYER
Comment 1
Page 9 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - Design and Production Organization Approvals
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
p. 9
Page 143 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high,
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As a fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, than could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries, where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II), it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
response Not accepted
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 273 comment by: Klaus Erger
Page 9 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
Design and Production Organisation Approvals
Negative, the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
As is commonly known and transparent through their individual approvals, the
existing NAA´s have a sometimes significantly different qualification and
capability level, due to whatever reason. As the NPA is formulated, it is up to
the NAA of the country, where the company is based, to select, whether they
will deal with the combined DOA/POA approval themselves, or whether they
delegate their part to the Agency. The reason for this decision is completely
left to the NAA. As by widely know experience NAA's have different levels, this
will lead to unacceptable different level of safty and unfair competition.
Proposal: It must be clear from the start that combined DOA/POA approvals
are dealt with always by the Agency. If this is not in line with the basic
regulation, a general agreement between Agency and NAA´s must be achieved
when issuing these changes, that NAA´s accept combined DOA/POA
applications to be dealt through the agency on the basis of basic regulation
20(2)b(ii).
response Not accepted
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 311 comment by: TECNAM
Negative, the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
As is commonly known and transparent through their individual approvals, the
existing NAA´s have a sometimes significantly different qualification and
capability level, due to whatever reason. As the NPA is formulated, it is up to
Page 144 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
the NAA of the country, where the company is based, to select, whether they
will deal with the combined DOA/POA approval themselves, or whether they
delegate their part to the Agency. The reason for this decision is completely
left to the NAA. As by widely know experience NAA's have different levels, this
will lead to unacceptable different level of safty and unfair competition.
Proposal: It must be clear from the start that combined DOA/POA approvals
are dealt with always by the Agency. If this is not in line with the basic
regulation, a general agreement between Agency and NAA´s must be achieved
when issuing these changes, that NAA´s accept combined DOA/POA
applications to be dealt through the agency on the basis of basic regulation
20(2)b(ii).
response Partially accepted
EASA can only issue a combined DOA/POA approval if the Member State has
agreed that the POA aspects are issued by EASA.
comment 346 comment by: Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Switzerland
response Noted
Who does what, Initial and Continued Airworthiness ELA 1:
Attachment 2 indicates that CRI A1 is agreed at NAA or QE level. In order to
achieve an adequate level of standardization it is recommended to define a
process to have the approved CRI/SC/ESF made available to the involved
stakeholders.
Who does what, Initial and Continued Airworthiness ELA 2:
Attachment 3 does not indicate the responsible party for Publication of CRD.
The charts that had been provided were to illustrate how the process could
work. However, the use of QE is not possible because the Management Board
has not yet adopted the corresponding policy. Please refer to CRD 2008-07
Part I paragraphs (b) 6 on QE.
comment 468 comment by: Tegelbeckers
Comment 2
Page 9 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
Design and Production Organization Approvals
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
Page 145 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Comment 3
Page 9 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
Design and Production Organisation Approvals
Negative, the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
As is commonly known and transparent through their individual approvals, the
existing NAA´s have a sometimes significantly different qualification and
capability level, due to whatever reason. As the NPA is formulated, it is up to
the NAA of the country, where the company is based, to select, whether they
will deal with the combined DOA/POA approval themselves, or whether they
delegate their part to the Agency. The reason for this decision is completely
left to the NAA. As by widely know experience NAA's have different levels, this
will lead to unacceptable different level of safty and unfair competition.
Proposal: It must be clear from the start that combined DOA/POA approvals
are dealt with always by the Agency. If this is not in line with the basic
regulation, a general agreement between Agency and NAA´s must be achieved
when issuing these changes, that NAA´s accept combined DOA/POA
applications to be dealt through the agency on the basis of basic regulation
20(2)b(ii).
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 482 comment by: Ultraleicht-Flugverein Saar-Pfalz e.V.
response Noted
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high,
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As a fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, than could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries, where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II), it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
Page 146 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 502 comment by: aeroklaus
response Noted
Comment 2
Page 9 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
Design and Production Organization Approvals
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 780 comment by: Herbert HERGET
response Noted
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high,
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft. There is no
connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production quality
system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level of safety
achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience, any rising
of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with additional
safety. As a fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient market
self control, than could be achieved by Agency control. This is the background
for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with the EASA DOA and
POA approvals by accepting existing AS TM or DIN ISO qualifications of
companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing. In all countries,
where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt aircrafts,
Annex II), it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a reason for
less safety and can even improve safety.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
Page 147 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
of capability for design and production.
A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
Design and Production Organisation Approvals
comment 68 comment by: Michael GREINER
response Noted
NOTE:
This comment was made against this section of the NPA. This comment and
the response are however only reflected once at page 6 of this CRD in order to
improve readability.
comment 89 comment by: René Fournier
response Noted
The lifting of the requirement for a quality system in production organisations
for the ELA 1 and ELA 2 aircraft categories and its replacement by an
organisational review is a welcome simplification, which I fully support. I also
approve the combined DOA/POA approvals.
From my own experience, the current system still lacks a framework allowing
the production of spare parts at an economically affordable price for aircraft no
longer in production. In such case, maintaining a POA proves too complex and
expansive for a limited number of aircraft and the validity of letters of
agreement is limited to one year. This would of course no longer be needed if
the EASA Form 1 requirement were to be totally lifted for ELA 1 aircraft.
The Agency thanks the commentator for his support.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 4 on demonstration of
capability for production and 7 on Form 1.
comment 105 comment by: Ultraleicht-Flugverein Saar-Pfalz e.V.
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
p. 9
Page 148 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 106 comment by: Ultraleicht-Flugverein Saar-Pfalz e.V.
response Noted
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 107 comment by: Ultraleicht-Flugverein Saar-Pfalz e.V.
response Noted
Negative, the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
As is commonly known and transparent through their individual approvals, the
existing NAA´s have a sometimes significantly different qualification and
capability level, due to whatever reason. As the NPA is formulated, it is up to
the NAA of the country, where the company is based, to select, whether they
will deal with the combined DOA/POA approval themselves, or whether they
delegate their part to the Agency. The reason for this decision is completely
left to the NAA. As by widely know experience NAA's have different levels, this
will lead to unacceptable different level of safty and unfair competition.
Proposal: It must be clear from the start that combined DOA/POA approvals
are dealt with always by the Agency. If this is not in line with the basic
regulation, a general agreement between Agency and NAA´s must be achieved
when issuing these changes, that NAA´s accept combined DOA/POA
applications to be dealt through the agency on the basis of basic regulation
20(2)b(ii).
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 142 comment by: Fridrich Jan
Page 149 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Tato koncepce vyžaduje bližší vysvětlení - zvláště za situace kdy žadatel místo
DOA zvolí proces schválení certifikačního programu.
Navrhuji aby pro letadla v procesu ELA1 byla za zjednodušené POA odpovědná
příslušná QE, kter se podílí na certifikaci.
The certification programme has been detailed by Opinion 01/2010. We plan to
develop AMC to explain the concept of simplified DOA.
Concerning QE and POA, please note that the EASA Management Board has not
yet adopted the policy for using QE.
comment 168 comment by: Alexander Eich
response Noted
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 192 comment by: Walter Gessky
Design and Production Approvals
Comment:
The Typical Technical Organisation in the GA ELA1 Group has a very small
number of technical employees (e.g. 5 employees) with different engineering
and mechanical background. The Organisation as TC Holder covers normally
Engineering for small changes and repairs, maintenance, production and
distribution of spare parts for this aeroplanes and the development of new
airplanes.
Based on this wide range of activities the organisation is working in an
economic way at a sufficient level of safety.
This may be an key element in ELA One, only one organisation!
Proposal:
Delete Subpart L.
Create a new Organisational approval which may have a scope of work in
Page 150 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
maintenance, production, design and CAMO (ARC privilege) for ELA 1.
One organisation, one approval and one Handbook for all activities in ELA 1.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 256 comment by: Gorden WIEGELS
response Noted
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 257 comment by: Gorden WIEGELS
Negative, the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
As is commonly known and transparent through their individual approvals, the
existing NAA´s have a sometimes significantly different qualification and
capability level, due to whatever reason. As the NPA is formulated, it is up to
the NAA of the country, where the company is based, to select, whether they
will deal with the combined DOA/POA approval themselves, or whether they
delegate their part to the Agency. The reason for this decision is completely
left to the NAA. As by widely know experience NAA's have different levels, this
will lead to unacceptable different level of safty and unfair competition.
Proposal: It must be clear from the start that combined DOA/POA approvals
are dealt with always by the Agency. If this is not in line with the basic
regulation, a general agreement between Agency and NAA´s must be achieved
when issuing these changes, that NAA´s accept combined DOA/POA
applications to be dealt through the agency on the basis of basic regulation
20(2)b(ii).
Page 151 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 289 comment by: Karg
response Noted
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights -
mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world - in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are already flying (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II), it is proven that deregulation in general is not reason for
less safety, much more it can even improve safety.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 290 comment by: Karg
response Noted
Negative, the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
As is commonly known and transparent through their individual approvals, the
existing NAA´s have a sometimes significantly different qualification and
capability level, due to whatever reason. As the NPA is formulated, it is up to
the NAA of the country, where the company is based, to select, whether they
will deal with the combined DOA/POA approval themselves, or whether they
delegate their part to the Agency. The reason for this decision is completely
left to the NAA. As by widely know experience NAA's have different levels, this
will lead to unacceptable different level of safety and unfair competition.
Proposal: It must be clear from the start that combined DOA/POA approvals
are dealt with always by the Agency. If this is not in line with the basic
regulation, a general agreement between Agency and NAA´s must be achieved
when issuing these changes, that NAA´s accept combined DOA/POA
applications to be dealt through the agency on the basis of basic regulation
20(2)b(ii).
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
Page 152 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 310 comment by: TECNAM
response Noted
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 362 comment by: O. Reinhardt / Flightdesign
response Noted
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
This comment is also valid for several other locations as linked, and for the
Who does what- Table, there section "organisational approval" (not possible to
link exactly).
Page 153 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 363 comment by: O. Reinhardt / Flightdesign
response Noted
Negative, the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
As is commonly known and transparent through their individual approvals, the
existing NAA´s have a sometimes significantly different qualification and
capability level, due to whatever reason. As the NPA is formulated, it is up to
the NAA of the country, where the company is based, to select, whether they
will deal with the combined DOA/POA approval themselves, or whether they
delegate their part to the Agency. The reason for this decision is completely
left to the NAA. As by widely know experience NAA’s have different levels, this
will lead to unacceptable different level of safty and unfair competition.
Proposal: It must be clear from the start that combined DOA/POA approvals
are dealt with always by the Agency. If this is not in line with the basic
regulation, a general agreement between Agency and NAA´s must be achieved
when issuing these changes, that NAA´s accept combined DOA/POA
applications to be dealt through the agency on the basis of basic regulation
20(2)b(ii).
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 381 comment by: Thomas Wendt
Comment 2
Page 9 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - Design and Production Organization Approvals
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Page 154 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Comment 3
Page 9 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - Design and Production Organisation Approvals
Negative, the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
As is commonly known and transparent through their individual approvals, the
existing NAA´s have a sometimes significantly different qualification and
capability level, due to whatever reason. As the NPA is formulated, it is up to
the NAA of the country, where the company is based, to select, whether they
will deal with the combined DOA/POA approval themselves, or whether they
delegate their part to the Agency. The reason for this decision is completely
left to the NAA. As by widely know experience NAA's have different levels, this
will lead to unacceptable different level of safty and unfair competition.
Proposal: It must be clear from the start that combined DOA/POA approvals
are dealt with always by the Agency. If this is not in line with the basic
regulation, a general agreement between Agency and NAA´s must be achieved
when issuing these changes, that NAA´s accept combined DOA/POA
applications to be dealt through the agency on the basis of basic regulation
20(2)b(ii).
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 400 comment by: Flight Design GmbH Matthias Betsch CEO
response Noted
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
Page 155 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 401 comment by: Flight Design GmbH Matthias Betsch CEO
response Noted
Negative, the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
As is commonly known and transparent through their individual approvals, the
existing NAA´s have a sometimes significantly different qualification and
capability level, due to whatever reason. As the NPA is formulated, it is up to
the NAA of the country, where the company is based, to select, whether they
will deal with the combined DOA/POA approval themselves, or whether they
delegate their part to the Agency. The reason for this decision is completely
left to the NAA. As by widely know experience NAA's have different levels, this
will lead to unacceptable different level of safty and unfair competition.
Proposal: It must be clear from the start that combined DOA/POA approvals
are dealt with always by the Agency. If this is not in line with the basic
regulation, a general agreement between Agency and NAA´s must be achieved
when issuing these changes, that NAA´s accept combined DOA/POA
applications to be dealt through the agency on the basis of basic regulation
20(2)b(ii).
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 405 comment by: TECNAM
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety
2° Comment
Negative, the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
As is commonly known and transparent through their individual approvals, the
existing NAA´s have a sometimes significantly different qualification and
capability level, due to whatever reason. As the NPA is formulated, it is up to
the NAA of the country, where the company is based, to select, whether they
will deal with the combined DOA/POA approval themselves, or whether they
Page 156 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
delegate their part to the Agency. The reason for this decision is completely
left to the NAA. As by widely know experience NAA’s have different levels, this
will lead to unacceptable different level of safty and unfair competition.
Proposal: It must be clear from the start that combined DOA/POA approvals
are dealt with always by the Agency. If this is not in line with the basic
regulation, a general agreement between Agency and NAA´s must be achieved
when issuing these changes, that NAA´s accept combined DOA/POA
applications to be dealt through the agency on the basis of basic regulation
20(2)b(ii).
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 451 comment by: www.fascination-pilots.de
response Noted
Negative, the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
As is commonly known and transparent through their individual approvals, the
existing NAA´s have a sometimes significantly different qualification and
capability level, due to whatever reason. As the NPA is formulated, it is up to
the NAA of the country, where the company is based, to select, whether they
will deal with the combined DOA/POA approval themselves, or whether they
delegate their part to the Agency. The reason for this decision is completely
left to the NAA. As by widely know experience NAA’s have different levels, this
will lead to unacceptable different level of safty and unfair competition.
Proposal: It must be clear from the start that combined DOA/POA approvals
are dealt with always by the Agency. If this is not in line with the basic
regulation, a general agreement between Agency and NAA´s must be achieved
when issuing these changes, that NAA´s accept combined DOA/POA
applications to be dealt through the agency on the basis of basic regulation
20(2)b(ii).
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 486 comment by: light-wings Oliver Liedmann
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
Page 157 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 487 comment by: light-wings Oliver Liedmann
response Noted
Negative, the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
As is commonly known and transparent through their individual approvals, the
existing NAA´s have a sometimes significantly different qualification and
capability level, due to whatever reason. As the NPA is formulated, it is up to
the NAA of the country, where the company is based, to select, whether they
will deal with the combined DOA/POA approval themselves, or whether they
delegate their part to the Agency. The reason for this decision is completely
left to the NAA. As by widely know experience NAA's have different levels, this
will lead to unacceptable different level of safty and unfair competition.
Proposal: It must be clear from the start that combined DOA/POA approvals
are dealt with always by the Agency. If this is not in line with the basic
regulation, a general agreement between Agency and NAA´s must be achieved
when issuing these changes, that NAA´s accept combined DOA/POA
applications to be dealt through the agency on the basis of basic regulation
20(2)b(ii).
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 503 comment by: aeroklaus
Comment 3
Page 9 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
Design and Production Organisation Approvals
Negative, the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
As is commonly known and transparent through their individual approvals, the
existing NAA´s have a sometimes significantly different qualification and
capability level, due to whatever reason. As the NPA is formulated, it is up to
the NAA of the country, where the company is based, to select, whether they
will deal with the combined DOA/POA approval themselves, or whether they
delegate their part to the Agency. The reason for this decision is completely
left to the NAA. As by widely know experience NAA’s have different levels, this
will lead to unacceptable different level of safty and unfair competition.
Proposal: It must be clear from the start that combined DOA/POA approvals
are dealt with always by the Agency. If this is not in line with the basic
regulation, a general agreement between Agency and NAA´s must be achieved
when issuing these changes, that NAA´s accept combined DOA/POA
Page 158 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
applications to be dealt through the agency on the basis of basic regulation
20(2)b(ii).
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 553 comment by: UK CAA
Subject/Topic Design & Production approvals
NPA
Section/Page
Comment
Section IV, Design It is proposed in the NPA that the requirement for a Quality
& Production system for production be removed. However, this is
approvals page 9 required by ICAO Annex 8 Chapter 2 paragraph 2.2.3
response Partially accepted
Suggestion
Retain the requirement for a Quality System.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 4 on demonstration of
capability for production.
comment 554 comment by: UK CAA
Subject/Topic Comments Specific to ELA 1 (including Light Sport)
NPA
Comment
Section/Page
Section IV, Design Conflict with NPA 2008-06
& Production
approvals page 9 It is proposed in the NPA that for ELA1 there will be no
DOA or APDOA.
For the many existing light aircraft in Europe that are no
longer supported by DOAs, the continued validity of the
Type Certificates and Certificates of Airworthiness of these
aircraft has been a significant issue for the Agency. This
has now been addressed by the Rulemaking Directorate
and their conclusions have been published recently as NPA
2008-06; (Restricted Type Certificates and Restricted
CofA). NPA 2008-06 makes two key points:
- NPA 2008-06 clarifies that any aircraft type that is not
supported by a DOA or APDOA (an "orphan aircraft") is not
eligible for a normal Type Certificate/Certificate of
Airworthiness but instead should have a Restricted
TC/Restricted CofA.
- The intent of NPA 2008-06 is to avoid an increase in
the number of orphan aircraft.
Questions
1. Why does this NPA 2008-07 propose that ELA 1 aircraft
are granted full TC and CofA without a DOA or APDOA,
when NPA 2008-06 states that if there is no DOA/APDOA
the aircraft are eligible for restricted certificates only?
Page 159 of 446

esponse Not accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
2. Why does this NPA 2008-07 propose the ELA 1 process
of commercial production without DOA/APDOA, which will
promote new production of orphans in volume, when one
of the stated objectives of NPA 2008-06 is to avoid
increasing the number of orphans?
NPA 2008-07 and NPA 2008-06 must be consistent. If NPA
2008-06 (Restricted TC, STC) sets out the correct legal
position, then it is suggested that this Opinion must either
require a DOA/APDOA for all ELA aircraft, or that ELA
aircraft with no DOA support must have Restricted Type
Certificates.
Opinion No 03/2009 set the principle that if a TC or RTC holder disappears or
stops meeting his/her responsibilities (that include maintaining the design
capability condition), then Restricted Certificates of airworthiness based on
specific airworthiness conditions could be issued. When APDOA or DOA are
required the loss of such leads to R-C of A based on SAS.
However, in this NPA we are saying that the eligibility condition for ELA1 is the
approval of the certification programme and not DOA or AP-DOA.
This NPA is actually consistent with the Opinion.
Note: the point made by the commentator that the loss of AP-DOA or DOA leads
to RTC is not understood as the eligibility conditions for TC and RTC are identical
in Part-21. The difference between the two can be described as follows:
A restricted type certificate may be applied when a type certificate is
inappropriate and the aircraft is designed for a special purpose for which the
Agency agrees it justifies deviations from the essential requirements of Annex I
to the Basic Regulation.
comment 582 comment by: klaus M
response Noted
Comment 2
Page 9 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
Design and Production Organization Approvals
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Page 160 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 583 comment by: klaus M
response Noted
Comment 3
Page 9 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
Design and Production Organisation Approvals
Negative, the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
As is commonly known and transparent through their individual approvals, the
existing NAA´s have a sometimes significantly different qualification and
capability level, due to whatever reason. As the NPA is formulated, it is up to
the NAA of the country, where the company is based, to select, whether they
will deal with the combined DOA/POA approval themselves, or whether they
delegate their part to the Agency. The reason for this decision is completely
left to the NAA. As by widely know experience NAA's have different levels, this
will lead to unacceptable different level of safty and unfair competition.
Proposal: It must be clear from the start that combined DOA/POA approvals
are dealt with always by the Agency. If this is not in line with the basic
regulation, a general agreement between Agency and NAA´s must be achieved
when issuing these changes, that NAA´s accept combined DOA/POA
applications to be dealt through the agency on the basis of basic regulation
20(2)b(ii).
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 605 comment by: Cessna Aircraft Company
response Noted
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Proposal 1: Based on the explicit experience of the three-plus years of LSA
operation in USA, and based upon the most recent operational experience of
advanced microlights (mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can
be clearly underlined, that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety
achieved is so high that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. In fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control. In all countries
where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt aircrafts,
Annex II, advance ultralights, etc.) it is clearly proven that deregulation in
general is not a reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
Page 161 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 628 comment by: Martin Josef Warken
response Noted
Comment 2
Page 9 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - Design and Production Organization Approvals
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Comment 3
Page 9 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - Design and Production Organisation Approvals
Negative, the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
As is commonly known and transparent through their individual approvals, the
existing NAA´s have a sometimes significantly different qualification and
capability level, due to whatever reason. As the NPA is formulated, it is up to
the NAA of the country, where the company is based, to select, whether they
will deal with the combined DOA/POA approval themselves, or whether they
delegate their part to the Agency. The reason for this decision is completely
left to the NAA. As by widely know experience NAA's have different levels, this
will lead to unacceptable different level of safty and unfair competition.
Proposal: It must be clear from the start that combined DOA/POA approvals
are dealt with always by the Agency. If this is not in line with the basic
regulation, a general agreement between Agency and NAA´s must be achieved
when issuing these changes, that NAA´s accept combined DOA/POA
applications to be dealt through the agency on the basis of basic regulation
20(2)b(ii).
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
Page 162 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 654 comment by: European Sailplane Manufacturers
The European sailplane manufacturers see the approvals for design and
production organisations as one of the main problems which need to be fixed
for small aviation.
The very concept of an organisation approval is the idea that the organisation
is guaranteeing the quality of the work and the safety of the products and
processess.
Nevertheless in very small organisations this is not longer true as experience
shows that the single people like the chefs / the designers / the heads of the
workforce which become now increasing important.
Furthermore it has shown to be really difficult, time-consuming and frustarting
(and last but not least also expensive) to try to certify very small organisations
in the same manner as big organisations are been certified.
This is been made even more difficult because the people doing these
certifications mostly do know only the big organisations and want to see the
same internal procedures and processess and manuals for the very small
companies too.
The lack of need for co-ordination between company departments when they
are sitting in the same office or are been represented by one single person is
simply not understood by the existing authorities making these organisation
approvals.
The result are overly complicated organisation manuals which are often not
wanted nor used plus unacceptable costs for the manufacturers.
The increased level of regulation is reflected by the simple fact that
manufacturers now in the business for more than 50 years have in the mean
time lost their accreditation as fully responsible design organisations with full
privileges and have now to work under so called alternative procedures (ADOA)
without privileges.
The organisations have stayed over the years as they where but the nowadays
much more stringent regulation makes approval for the comparable DOA not
longer feasible.
This should not be blamed to the companies (as has been done repeatedly by
officials) but onto the changed regulation.
Here a real change would mean a major step for better suited regulation but
sadly only details in the Part 21 have been changed.
Still a company faces severe hurdles when deciding to move their field of
business into the EASA regulated field of aviation.
The sailplane manufacturers had no choice as it was decided from the outset
that sailplanes should fall under EASA jurisdication.
Sadly they were not questioned during the MDM.032 process directly what
should be improved to make life easier for manufacturers of small aircraft
when this NPA 2008-07 was drafted.
The proposed changes may offer some slight improvement but should have
Page 163 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
given much more relief to the sector of aviation now covered within the
proposed ELA context.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 659 comment by: EAA
response Noted
Page 9 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
Design and Production Organization Approvals
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Proposal 1: Based on the explicit experience of the three-plus years of LSA
operation in the USA, and based upon the most recent operational experience
of advanced microlights (mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it
can be clearly underlined that even at this level of deregulation the level of
safety achieved is so high that it can hold with those as found for Part 23
aircraft. There is no connection visible that a self declaration of design and
production quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on
the level of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit
experience, any rising of requirement(s) of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control that could be achieved by Agency control. In all countries
where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt aircrafts,
Annex II, advance ultralights, etc.), it is clearly proven that deregulation in
general is not a reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 672 comment by: Peter VON BURG
response Noted
Based on risk consideration, microlight expericence and 3 years LSA operation
overall safety will be similar even with deregulation within DOA/POA.
Self declaration has the effect, that the responsibility is clearly at the
designer/manufacturer, without any chance to excuse an insufficient design
agreed by a certification agency.
For aircrafts with negligible risks (small, slow, small volume of fuel, low no of
passengers) DOA / POA should be approved by accepting ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications as well.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 684 comment by: Evektor
Page 164 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
EVEKTOR position:
Combined DOA/POA and DOA AP "with privileges" must me detailly explained
in AMC/GM if the privileges would be different to current DOA procedures.
For combined DOA/POA would be very important to assure the same level of
investigation demands round the EU. Detailed AMC/GM to combinated
DOA/POA would be necessary.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 703 comment by: procomposite
response Noted
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 726 comment by: Oliver
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
Page 165 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 727 comment by: Oliver
response Noted
Negative, the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
As is commonly known and transparent through their individual approvals, the
existing NAA´s have a sometimes significantly different qualification and
capability level, due to whatever reason. As the NPA is formulated, it is up to
the NAA of the country, where the company is based, to select, whether they
will deal with the combined DOA/POA approval themselves, or whether they
delegate their part to the Agency. The reason for this decision is completely
left to the NAA. As by widely know experience NAA's have different levels, this
will lead to unacceptable different level of safty and unfair competition.
Proposal: It must be clear from the start that combined DOA/POA approvals
are dealt with always by the Agency. If this is not in line with the basic
regulation, a general agreement between Agency and NAA´s must be achieved
when issuing these changes, that NAA´s accept combined DOA/POA
applications to be dealt through the agency on the basis of basic regulation
20(2)b(ii).
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 752 comment by: Air Marugan
Comment 2
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
Page 166 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
comment 753 comment by: Air Marugan
response Noted
Comment 3
Negative, the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
As is commonly known and transparent through their individual approvals, the
existing NAA´s have a sometimes significantly different qualification and
capability level, due to whatever reason. As the NPA is formulated, it is up to
the NAA of the country, where the company is based, to select, whether they
will deal with the combined DOA/POA approval themselves, or whether they
delegate their part to the Agency. The reason for this decision is completely
left to the NAA. As by widely know experience NAA's have different levels, this
will lead to unacceptable different level of safty and unfair competition.
Proposal: It must be clear from the start that combined DOA/POA approvals
are dealt with always by the Agency. If this is not in line with the basic
regulation, a general agreement between Agency and NAA´s must be achieved
when issuing these changes, that NAA´s accept combined DOA/POA
applications to be dealt through the agency on the basis of basic regulation
20(2)b(ii).
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 3 and 4 on demonstration
of capability for design and production.
A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
Limiting the number of parts that need a Form 1
p. 9-10
comment 68 comment by: Michael GREINER
response Noted
NOTE:
This comment was made against this section of the NPA. This comment and
the response are however only reflected once at page 6 of this CRD in order to
improve readability.
comment 90 comment by: René Fournier
Since its introduction, the JAA/EASA Form 1 requirement has clearly proved to
be extremely cumbersome and time consuming, whilst the value added in
terms of actual safety of applying such requirement to ELA 1 aircraft remains
to be seen. In my view, this requirement applied to sports and leisure aviation
is disproportionate to the safety objective pursued and might even prove
Page 167 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
counterproductive in terms of actual safety of the aircraft concerned.
I therefore welcome the relaxation of the EASA form 1 requirement
contemplated in this NPA. It is a step in the right direction, although it should
go further.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 233 comment by: Filippo De Florio
response Noted
21A.307 Release of parts and appliances for installation
o The owner-produced parts you propose are not comparable to the one
existing in USA because the FAR 21 303(a) (2) allows this parts also
for operators and for every type of aircraft.
o The possibility the US owners/operators have to produce their own
parts is mainly related to old and ‘orphan’ aircraft for which it is difficult
to find replacement parts.
o The FAA Memorandum of August 1993 explains how a owner/operator
produced part can become an FAA approved part. The process is a
logical but binding process. Because something similar should be
imposed by EASA, I cannot see the interest of a ELA’s owner for
producing its own replacement parts he can easily find.
o My conclusions.
- I can envisage a meagre interest in the introduction of ownerproduced
parts for ELA’s owners.
- Indipendent of ELA , an harmonisation of the EASA Part 21 with
the FAR 21 in the matter of owner/operator-produced parts
could be of general interest.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 233 comment by: Filippo De Florio
response Noted
21A.307 Release of parts and appliances for installation
o The owner-produced parts you propose are not comparable to the one
existing in USA because the FAR 21 303(a) (2) allows this parts also
for operators and for every type of aircraft.
o The possibility the US owners/operators have to produce their own
parts is mainly related to old and ‘orphan’ aircraft for which it is difficult
to find replacement parts.
o The FAA Memorandum of August 1993 explains how a owner/operator
produced part can become an FAA approved part. The process is a
logical but binding process. Because something similar should be
imposed by EASA, I cannot see the interest of a ELA’s owner for
producing its own replacement parts he can easily find.
o My conclusions.
- I can envisage a meagre interest in the introduction of ownerproduced
parts for ELA’s owners.
- Indipendent of ELA , an harmonisation of the EASA Part 21 with
the FAR 21 in the matter of owner/operator-produced parts
could be of general interest.
Page 168 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 432 comment by: Light Aircraft Association UK
response Noted
This section states that this ‘would only be possible for parts which are
produced under the responsibility of the owner for installation on his own
aircraft'. This implies that the responsibility (=liability) rests with the owner,
but what happens to that responsibility when the owner sells his aircraft to a
3rd party? Who would be responsible then?
It also notes that safeguards include the airworthiness review and the
compliance with approved design. The owner needs to know what approved
data is available for his aircraft and have access to it: this could lead to
confusion as to what is considered ‘approved data'. With regards the
airworthiness review, this might not happen for some time after the
replacement parts are manufactured and installed. The NPA does not explicitly
state whether or not an inspection of the installation by an appropriately
qualified individual to release the aircraft for flight will be required.
Again, it isn't explicit, but when it says for ELA1 that ‘all parts' can be treated
in this way, does this extend to the owner obtaining engines, propellers and
instruments that are nominally the same as previously fitted? E.g. the
exchange of the original uncertified engine for a replacement uncertified engine
of the same type.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 562 comment by: UK CAA
Subject/Topic Limiting the number of parts that require a Form 1
NPA
Comment
Section/Page
Page 9, 10 The safeguards proposed in the NPA for allowing parts that
are not standard parts, to be installed without Form 1
documentation are:
(i). Airworthiness review by the competent authority or
CAMO;
(ii). The part must comply with the approved design.
This raises the following issues:
1. The CAMO / NAA will have to carry out an investigation
in order to be able to meet its obligations when presented
with an aircraft that has parts fitted that have no
traceability to authorised production via a formal release
certificate issued under an organisation approval. This will
be time consuming and therefore expensive.
2. If the part is to conform to the approved design, the
design data must be made available to the person making
the part. It is unlikely that a TC Holder will agree to supply
data and drawings to owners to enable them to make their
own parts, as this will reduce the income that is generated
by the sale of factory-built spares.
Page 169 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
3. The production and installation of parts without approved
release certificates would impair traceability and so
increase the difficulty of identifying affected aircraft when
airworthiness problems arise in service. The lack of
traceability is not in accordance with ICAO Annex 8 Chapter
2 para 2.2.4.
4. There is an assumption under this section that owners
will only be producing parts for their own aircraft. The NPA
does not take into consideration that the aircraft could be
used to carry passengers and that the aircraft could be sold
to a third party in the future. Also, there is a statement that
the part must comply with an approved design, but no
indication of how this is to be achieved/controlled.
5. As stated within "Question 1", the possibility of owners
producing their own parts highlights the issue of whether
ELA aircraft will be able to be used for commercial purposes
or not, as it is assumed that aircraft embodying parts that
are not factory built will be restricted to recreational use. If
all ELA aircraft are prohibited from flying commercially this
is not an issue.
6. In a number of places the NPA seems to propose
changing the reference from 'critical parts' to 'life limited
parts'. The term 'critical parts' has a specific meaning in
relation to helicopters and this does not appear to have
been taken into account in the NPA. VLR 602 states:
'(a) A critical part is a part, the failure of which could have
a catastrophic effect upon the rotorcraft, and for which
critical characteristics have been identified which must be
controlled to ensure the required level of integrity.
(b) If the type design includes critical parts, a critical parts
list shall be established. Procedures shall be established to
define the critical design characteristics, identify processes
that affect those characteristics, and identify the design
change and process change controls necessary for showing
compliance with the quality assurance requirements of
Part-21. (See AMC VLR.602)'
Questions
If the operating restrictions are to be different depending
on whether the aircraft contains parts that are not
manufactured by a POA Holder, how will this be controlled?
Is it intended that the meanings of critical parts and lifelimited
parts will be changed by this NPA?
What are the repercussions for CS-VLR?
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
Page 170 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
Limiting the number of parts that need a Form 1 - Question 1
comment 28 comment by: FFVV
response Noted
p. 10
On behalf of FFVV - comments
It is sometime difficult to get this famous Form 1, even when parts or
equpements are ordered to sailplanes manufacturers ! In matter of safety the
only requirement should be to produce evidence of the origine of the product
(deliverde by..) any invoice, statement should be convenient;
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 42 comment by: John Tempest
Answer to Question 1.
Part of the problem with answering this question is that, in spite of the
definition contained in 216/2008, it is not clear what is classified as commercial
flying. A list of categories/roles indicating what is and what is not commercial
flying would be very helpful. This should be incorporated into AMC material for
this implimenting rule as referenced by the Basic Regulation.
When answering this question, I am assuming that private aircraft and aircraft
used by Member's flying clubs for training and hire by club members (where
the membership has control of the operation of the company) are classified as
aircraft used for non-commercial purposes. If so, then I believe that it would
not be overly restrictive to limit spare parts without a Form 1 to noncommercial
aircraft only.
Alternatively, should aircraft used by Member's flying clubs be classified as
being used for commercial purposes, then there is still argument for using
parts without a Form 1 for these aircraft as follows:
If sufficient confidence exists that the part is to the correct design and
production standard, it would appear an unnecessary obstacle to prohibit use
of parts without a Form 1 on ELA-1 and ELA-2 aircraft used for commercial
purposes. The UK Microlight industry relies on spare parts provided with a
Certificate of Conformity, usually although not exclusively from the
Manufacturer, and there is no requirement for a Form 1. This has been found
to result in an acceptable level of safety, including in the flight training
environment where the aircraft are in extensive use. Based on the successful
experience developed in the UK microlight aircraft industry, my view is that
use of parts without a Form 1 should not be limited to aircraft used for noncommercial
purposes. Additional protection is already in place for the larger
ELA-2 aircraft, which limits the areas where parts without a Form 1 may be
used.
In either case, my view is that spares without Form 1 are OK for private
aircraft and aircraft used by member's flying clubs for training and hire by club
members.
Page 171 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 68 comment by: Michael GREINER
response Noted
NOTE:
This comment was made against this section of the NPA. This comment and
the response are however only reflected once at page 6 of this CRD in order to
improve readability.
comment 71 comment by: John Tempest
response Noted
Certification Specification for Light Sport Aircraft.
I believe that is is very sensible to adopt the ASTM standards into a European
CS code.
The Agency thanks the commentator for his support.
comment 72 comment by: John Tempest
response Noted
Standard Changes and Standard Repairs.
I believe that it is sensible to adopt standard alterations and standard repairs
promulgated by AC43 publications into a European CS code.
The Agency thanks the commentator for his support.
comment 91 comment by: René Fournier
response Noted
To my opinion, at least with respect to ELA 1 aircraft, the EASA Form 1
requirement should be lifted not only for parts produced under the
responsibility of the aircraft owner but, more generally, for all parts mounted
on his aircraft under his responsibility whoever produces them, as long as they
are in conformity with the approved design.
Such solution would economically make more sense, since this could provide
space not only for the production of an individual part for a particular aircraft,
but also for the production of tiny series of parts at a better price. This is
particularly desirable for old aircraft model that exist in small numbers and
which are no longer produced. At the end, such part would be mounted on the
aircraft and the aircraft owner would assume responsibility for them.
If not explicitly mentioned in Regulation 1702/2003, this possibility could be
opened in the AMC-GM to be developed. In line with the Agency's statement in
NPA 2008-06, this would be a concrete measure encouraging the continued
support of old TCs by their older.
Page 172 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 108 comment by: Ultraleicht-Flugverein Saar-Pfalz e.V.
response Noted
Answer to Question:
It is the opinion of this stakeholder, that it is appropriate to limit the possibility
to release parts without a Form 1 as described in the NPA to aircraft that are
used for non-commercial purposes. However, for all commercial usage it is
possible to install parts without explicit Form 1 that come with a release
certificate from the aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released
parts must not have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft
manufacturer, but they must undergo the same quality inspection process that
this specific part undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft
manufacturer upon initial installation.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 137 comment by: Fridrich Jan
response Noted
Domnívám se, že Form 1 by neměl být vyžadován minimálně pro proces ELA 1.
Pro vyšší kategorie zvážit jeho vyžadování jen pro životně důležité díly
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 152 comment by: Light Aircraft Association of the Czech Republic
response Noted
LAA ČR strongly recommend that for at least ELA 1 the usage of Form 1 is not
necessary.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 169 comment by: Alexander Eich
response Noted
Answer to Question:
It is the opinion of this stakeholder, that it is appropriate to limit the possibility
to release parts without a Form 1 as described in the NPA to aircraft that are
used for non-commercial purposes. However, for all commercial usage it is
possible to install parts without explicit Form 1 that come with a release
certificate from the aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released
parts must not have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft
manufacturer, but they must undergo the same quality inspection process that
this specific part undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft
manufacturer upon initial installation.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 179 comment by: Ingmar Hedblom
Page 173 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
It is suggested that the modified paragraph 21A.307 is not made applicable
only to aircraft that are used for non-commercial purpose. Such a limitation
would decrease the value of aircraft when an owner want to sell his aircraft
and is not justified by airworthiness reasons since relevant parts should still be
in conformity with an approved design if released without Form 1.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 224 comment by: Aero-Club of Switzerland
response Noted
It is the general idea of the Aero-Club of Switzerland to simplify as much as
possible all paperwork related with the airworthiness of all aircraft not used for
commercial purposes, but the term "commercial" needs a much clearer
definition than the one of 216/2008. It would be a great help to all operators of
non-complex aircraft not only to have a definition but a complete list all
aeronautical activities, the one's which have to be considered as "commercial"
as well as the one's which do not. Could this be a proposal of our Organisation
to the Agency?
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 236 comment by: Flight Design GmbH Matthias Betsch CEO
response Noted
Answer to Question:
It is the opinion of this stakeholder, that it is appropriate to limit the possibility
to release parts without a Form 1 as described in the NPA to aircraft that are
used for non-commercial purposes. However, for all commercial usage it is
possible to install parts without explicit Form 1 that come with a release
certificate from the aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released
parts must not have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft
manufacturer, but they must undergo the same quality inspection process that
this specific part undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft
manufacturer upon initial installation.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 258 comment by: Gorden WIEGELS
Answer to Question:
It is the opinion of this stakeholder, that it is appropriate to limit the possibility
to release parts without a Form 1 as described in the NPA to aircraft that are
used for non-commercial purposes. However, for all commercial usage it is
possible to install parts without explicit Form 1 that come with a release
certificate from the aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released
parts must not have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft
manufacturer, but they must undergo the same quality inspection process that
this specific part undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft
manufacturer upon initial installation.
Page 174 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 274 comment by: Klaus Erger
response Noted
Comment 4
Page 10 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the
draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
Limiting the number of parts that need a Form 1 - Question 1
Answer to Question:
It is the opinion of this stakeholder, that it is appropriate to limit the possibility
to release parts without a Form 1 as described in the NPA to aircraft that are
used for non-commercial purposes. However, for all commercial usage it is
possible to install parts without explicit Form 1 that come with a release
certificate from the aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released
parts must not have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft
manufacturer, but they must undergo the same quality inspection process that
this specific part undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft
manufacturer upon initial installation.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 312 comment by: TECNAM
response Noted
Answer to Question:
It is the opinion of this stakeholder, that it is appropriate to limit the possibility
to release parts without a Form 1 as described in the NPA to aircraft that are
used for non-commercial purposes. However, for all commercial usage it is
possible to install parts without explicit Form 1 that come with a release
certificate from the aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released
parts must not have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft
manufacturer, but they must undergo the same quality inspection process that
this specific part undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft
manufacturer upon initial installation.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 354 comment by: British Gliding Association
Question 1 regarding Forms 1 and creation of parts and repair
schemes.
In managing this class of aircraft over 40 years the BGA has demonstrated a
safe approach to minor fitments and fittings which require no bureaucracy or
official paperwork analogous to the EASA Form 1.
We recommend this approach to the community. Under this scheme the owner
holds the right and consequent responsibility for installing locally approved
items and fitments, other than those which logically and correctly should be
supplied by the manufacturer (or his suppliers). These of course includes all
Page 175 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
items of primary and secondary structure and control systems, but would allow
installations of role equipment, cockpit comforts etc. Repair schemes may also
be raised locally and approved by peer review if a TC holder is not available, eg
for SAS aircraft.
These practices are underpinned by peer review from experienced individuals
within the sport association (which in the new model would logically would
become some kind of Qualified Entity or Assessment Body, see other BGA
comment), but responsibility remains with the owner. We believe that the
current NPA amendments on 'Standard Parts' falls well short of our approach,
and that NPA continues to apply restrictions to personal freedoms and the
ability to operate sport aircraft in a developed manner and in accordance with
owners personal preferences.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 364 comment by: O. Reinhardt / Flightdesign
response Noted
Answer to Question:
It is the opinion of this stakeholder, that it is appropriate to limit the possibility
to release parts without a Form 1 as described in the NPA to aircraft that are
used for non-commercial purposes. However, for all commercial usage it is
possible to install parts without explicit Form 1 that come with a release
certificate from the aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released
parts must not have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft
manufacturer, but they must undergo the same quality inspection process that
this specific part undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft
manufacturer upon initial installation.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 365 comment by: SAMA Swiss Aircraft Maintenance Association
response Noted
(parts not requiring Form 1, Question 1):
SAMA agrees that certain parts for non complex aircraft can be released to
service without a Form 1, in order to alleviate procedural paperwork without
compromising safety. This posibility shall be limited to non critical parts (e.g.
not life limited, primary structure or flight controls, unless redundant).
Considering the possibility of a change of ownership or different use of a non
complex aircraft, we believe that it would not be practicable to limit the use of
such parts strictly to non commercial operations.
Please note that - again - we refer to 'non complex aircraft', not ELA.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraph (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 382 comment by: Thomas Wendt
Comment 4
Page 10 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Page 176 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Aircraft Process - Limiting the number of parts that need a Form 1 -
Question 1
Answer to Question:
It is the opinion of this stakeholder, that it is appropriate to limit the possibility
to release parts without a Form 1 as described in the NPA to aircraft that are
used for non-commercial purposes. However, for all commercial usage it is
possible to install parts without explicit Form 1 that come with a release
certificate from the aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released
parts must not have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft
manufacturer, but they must undergo the same quality inspection process that
this specific part undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft
manufacturer upon initial installation.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 406 comment by: TECNAM
response Noted
Answer to Question:
It is the opinion of this stakeholder, that it is appropriate to limit the possibility
to release parts without a Form 1 as described in the NPA to aircraft that are
used for non-commercial purposes. However, for all commercial usage it is
possible to install parts without explicit Form 1 that come with a release
certificate from the aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released
parts must not have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft
manufacturer, but they must undergo the same quality inspection process that
this specific part undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft
manufacturer upon initial installation.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 413 comment by: JIHLAVAN airplanes s.r.o.
response Noted
JIHLAVAN airplanes, s.r.o. strongly recommends that for at least ELA 1 the
usage of Form 1 is not necessary.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 448 comment by: Rybar Jirka
response Noted
Domnívám se, že Form 1 nemůže být vyžadován minimálně pro proces ELA1
(tedy letadla do MTOM méně než 1tunu) Pro vyšší kategorie je nutné stanovit
jeho vyžadování jen pro životně důležité díly.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 452 comment by: www.fascination-pilots.de
Page 177 of 446

esponse Noted
Answer to Question:
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
It is the opinion of this stakeholder, that it is appropriate to limit the possibility
to release parts without a Form 1 as described in the NPA to aircraft that are
used for non-commercial purposes. However, for all commercial usage it is
possible to install parts without explicit Form 1 that come with a release
certificate from the aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released
parts must not have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft
manufacturer, but they must undergo the same quality inspection process that
this specific part undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft
manufacturer upon initial installation.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 469 comment by: Tegelbeckers
response Noted
There is no text in the database.
comment 488 comment by: light-wings Oliver Liedmann
response Noted
Answer to Question:
It is the opinion of this stakeholder, that it is appropriate to limit the possibility
to release parts without a Form 1 as described in the NPA to aircraft that are
used for non-commercial purposes. However, for all commercial usage it is
possible to install parts without explicit Form 1 that come with a release
certificate from the aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released
parts must not have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft
manufacturer, but they must undergo the same quality inspection process that
this specific part undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft
manufacturer upon initial installation.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 504 comment by: aeroklaus
Comment 4
Page 10 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the
draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
Limiting the number of parts that need a Form 1 - Question 1
Answer to Question:
It is the opinion of this stakeholder, that it is appropriate to limit the possibility
to release parts without a Form 1 as described in the NPA to aircraft that are
used for non-commercial purposes. However, for all commercial usage it is
possible to install parts without explicit Form 1 that come with a release
certificate from the aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released
parts must not have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft
manufacturer, but they must undergo the same quality inspection process that
Page 178 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
this specific part undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft
manufacturer upon initial installation.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 584 comment by: klaus M
response Noted
Comment 4
Page 10 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the
draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
Limiting the number of parts that need a Form 1 - Question 1
Answer to Question:
It is the opinion of this stakeholder, that it is appropriate to limit the possibility
to release parts without a Form 1 as described in the NPA to aircraft that are
used for non-commercial purposes. However, for all commercial usage it is
possible to install parts without explicit Form 1 that come with a release
certificate from the aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released
parts must not have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft
manufacturer, but they must undergo the same quality inspection process that
this specific part undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft
manufacturer upon initial installation.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 610 comment by: Peter VON BURG
response Noted
We think it is appropriate to limite the requirement for a Form 1 as described
in the NPA.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 621 comment by: European Sailplane Manufacturers
The European sailplane manufacturers have to give several answers as the
question and the proposed sollution is not 100% clear to interprete.
1. The sailplane manufacturers already have shown EASA that in the
gliding sector the operation of aircraft with equipment having neither a
Form 1 or being part of the TC is general practise which has not posed a
safety problem.
EASA has accepted this view and created EASA Decisions 2006/13 and
/14 which defines certain types of equipment as "sailplane standard
parts" which do not require a Form 1.
Neverthelessthis approach still leaves certification of the according
installation open and as today such an approval would cost 250 Euro (a
minor change) the majority of owners / operators still do not have a
legal and viable way to operate this useful equipment.
2. Complicating this issue some NAA have stated that the EASA decisions
stated above have no real legal character as they only change
wordingin the Part 21 AMC material but not in the Part 21 main text.
Page 179 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
3. Therefore a sollution is still needed which
a - is within the main text of Part 21
b - legalises such equipment without a Form 1
c - legalises also the installation
4. Nevertheless such parts cannot really to be said to have been produced
under the responsibility of the owner. Mostly these are parts which are
simply bought and installed.
5. Experience from decades of operation of such equipment have shown
that the controls by the certifying staff done during the airworthiness
reviews was sufficient to prevent grossly unsafe types of equipment and
installation. Examples of "not-really-good" installations are known but
they have not resulted into real safety problems.
6. A look into the comparatevely un-regulated world of micro-lights also
prooves the view that the owner should heve more freedom there.
7. Nevertheless the proposed change could also be interpreted in a way
that the owner will then be allowed to produce complete aircraft parts
as long he personally uses it later on.
Whereas the principle idea that he can only harm himself might be not
wrong some caution has to be taken here:
Even if someone would have all the internal documents and drawings of
a major part (wing or fuselage) it might be not easily possible to
produce this in the same quality and strength as the original
manufacturer.
In this context the proposal seems not to be acceptable.
8. The detail if such parts should be limited to non-commercial use is also
not easy to consider.
First the definition of commerciat activities given in the Basic Regulation
is not really helpfull as several typical activities in the air sport
communities would still fall under this definition which might not the
aim of the limitation.
Second it would be difficult to access for a later owner of such an
aircraft if he has now the limitation to non-commercial activities or not.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 629 comment by: Martin Josef Warken
response Noted
Comment 4
Page 10 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - Limiting the number of parts that need a Form 1 -
Question 1
Answer to Question:
It is the opinion of this stakeholder, that it is appropriate to limit the possibility
to release parts without a Form 1 as described in the NPA to aircraft that are
used for non-commercial purposes. However, for all commercial usage it is
possible to install parts without explicit Form 1 that come with a release
certificate from the aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released
parts must not have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft
manufacturer, but they must undergo the same quality inspection process that
this specific part undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft
manufacturer upon initial installation.
Page 180 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 681 comment by: Deutscher Aero Club e.V. (DAeC)
response Noted
DAeC supports the possibility for owners to release parts without Form 1 for
their own aircraft. Part M.A.201 (i) obliges owners to be contracted to a CAMO
and Subpart F organisation already. Therefore the limitation for the noncommercial
purposes is obsolete.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 685 comment by: Evektor
response Noted
EVEKTOR position: we fully agree with the possibility to release parts without a
Form 1 for non-commertial purposes.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 689 comment by: DSvU
response Noted
Specific:
The Agency has asked a question 1, regarding the stakeholders views on the
appropriateness of limiting the possibility to release parts without a Form 1 to
aircraft that are used for non-commercial purposes.
Answer:
It is our opinion, that releasing parts without a Form 1 should be limited to
non-commercial purposes.
Justification:
The basic philosophy behind the ELA-concept is to create a lighter regulatory
regime for sports aviation and it is essential to maintain a separate view on the
regulatory regime for the two groups of aviation.
Consequently a future possibility of releasing parts in commercial aviation
without a Form 1 can not be justified by having this possibility for noncommercial
aviation but must be evaluated by a separate safety study
(cost/benefit).
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 705 comment by: procomposite
Answer to Question:
It is the opinion of this stakeholder, that it is appropriate to limit the possibility
to release parts without a Form 1 as described in the NPA to aircraft that are
used for non-commercial purposes. However, for all commercial usage it is
possible to install parts without explicit Form 1 that come with a release
certificate from the aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released
parts must not have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft
Page 181 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
manufacturer, but they must undergo the same quality inspection process that
this specific part undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft
manufacturer upon initial installation.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 709 comment by: Europe Air Sports, VP
response Noted
We strongly recommend that for at least ELA 1 the usage of Form 1 is not
necessary.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 728 comment by: Oliver
response Noted
Answer to Question:
It is the opinion of this stakeholder, that it is appropriate to limit the possibility
to release parts without a Form 1 as described in the NPA to aircraft that are
used for non-commercial purposes. However, for all commercial usage it is
possible to install parts without explicit Form 1 that come with a release
certificate from the aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released
parts must not have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft
manufacturer, but they must undergo the same quality inspection process that
this specific part undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft
manufacturer upon initial installation.
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
comment 754 comment by: Air Marugan
response Noted
Comment 4
Answer to Question:
It is the opinion of this stakeholder, that it is appropriate to limit the possibility
to release parts without a Form 1 as described in the NPA to aircraft that are
used for non-commercial purposes. However, for all commercial usage it is
possible to install parts without explicit Form 1 that come with a release
certificate from the aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released
parts must not have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft
manufacturer, but they must undergo the same quality inspection process that
this specific part undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft
manufacturer upon initial installation
Please refer to CRD 2008-07 Part I paragraphs (b) 7 on EASA Form 1.
Page 182 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
Creation of a Certification Specification for Light Sport Aeroplanes
comment 110 comment by: Ultraleicht-Flugverein Saar-Pfalz e.V.
response Accepted
p. 10
The slight differences have a noticeable effect to the product:
A limitation do Day VFR only is considered not acceptable, as the standard
explicitly provides requirements for night VFR (already now) and IFR
(upcoming right now) operation.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not mean,
that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or IFR. This still
requires the proper license with endorsement. Also, requirements to equipment
for operation at night and under IFR are also not overruled. So allowing
principally the usage of the aircraft in this conditions, under the limitations of
the ELA concept, does not pose a factual reduction in level of safety. This can
be clearly verified through the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
It is in the very nature of the ASTM standard, to evolve, in order to further
raise the level of safety and keep the requirements always up to date. For FAA
registered LSA it is a must, after a certain transition time, for the applicant to
upgrade his design in line with newer standards. In the implementation
proposed by EASA, an applicant may choose to stay on the lower level, selling
an aircraft of the same category at a lower level of qualification, whilst others
are forced to update, as they already have to do when they sell to FAA world.
IMC and night VFR may also be accepted when complying with an appropriate
appendix to CS-LSA. This appendix will include in particular the necessary
additional specifications for power plant and systems.
comment 170 comment by: Alexander Eich
response Noted
Comment 2 valid also here
Please see reply to comment No 166.
comment 209 comment by: Walter Gessky
CS-LSA
Comment:
The definition of LSA is different to the US definition for LSA.
‘LSA aircraft' means any aeroplane with (LSA meaning "Light Sport
Aeroplane"):
- a Maximum Take-off Mass (MTOM) of not more than 600 kg, and
- a maximum stalling speed in the landing configuration (VS0) of not more
than 45 knots Calibrated Airspeed (CAS) at the aircraft's maximum certificated
takeoff mass and most critical centre of gravity, and
- a maximum seating capacity of no more than two persons, including the
pilot, and
- a single, non-turbine engine fitted with a propeller, and
- a non-pressurised cabin.
US LSA means an aircraft, other than a helicopter or powered lift that,
Page 183 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
since its original certification, has continued to meet the following:
Max takeoff weight (MTOW) of not more than:
1320 pounds (600 kilograms) for all land aircraft
1430 pounds (650 kilograms) for aircraft intended for operation
on water
Max speed (Vh) -120 knots (138 mph); Glider Vne -120 knots
- Max stall speed - not more than 45 knots (52 mph)
- 2 seats max; non-pressurized; single reciprocating engine
- Fixed or ground adjustable propeller; auto-feather for glider
Fixed landing gear, except for an aircraft intended for operation on
water or a glider (retractable gear allowed)
Therefore the Import/Export to and from the US Market is complicated without
technical changes. This is a great disadvantage for the industry.
In addition the referenced airworthiness code ASTM IS F2245 is tailored to the
US definition for LSA. No requirement for certain designs might be included like
variable pitch propeller, landing gear.
Gliders are missing.
Proposal:
Adopt the US LSA without any differences or initiate an harmonization
process with the FAA.
The systems are different: the ELA is top-down; the US-LSA is outside the
normal FAA system. Two main questions need to be answered:
Is a European LSA having a TC/ RTC eligible for S-LSA in the US?
US-LSA import: if we apply the ELA process (TC or RTC), the issue of the State
of Design needs to be addressed.
The following options were evaluated:
EU manufacturers could produce aircraft for the US market and not
supply any documentary evidence of conformity with the EASA TC (even
though the aircraft would be identical to those flying in the EU with C of
A). And the FAA could be flexible in its interpretation of FAR 21.190.
The obvious risk here is that US manufacturers of LSA might challenge
the FAA’s acceptance of the EU aircraft, possibly in the US law courts,
and the FAA would not have a tenable defence. Such a challenge would
be very likely if US manufacturers found that they were denied entry to
the EU market, or that compliance with EASA’s ELA standards resulted
in additional costs to them.
EU manufacturers could open subsidiary completion centres in the US,
and US manufacturers equivalent facilities within the EU, to change the
“nationality” of the products. For example, the EU country where
Cessna opened its subsidiary would become State of Design for the
“European Skycatcher” and EASA would be the Primary Certifying
Authority for the aircraft. It would not be a good solution for EASA for
the TC Holder to be a token local office for a non-EU aircraft company.
This solution would also add cost for all of the LSA/ELA companies.
EASA could re-think the proposed rule change for CS-LSA aeroplanes so
that such aircraft receive a non-ICAO approval and certificates that the
FAA agrees are not equivalent to those listed in FAR 21.190(b)(2)
(Possibly a non-ICAO Restricted Type Certificate and Restricted C of A).
This would mean that ELA1 aircraft accepted as being compliant with
ASTM F2245 would receive non-ICAO certificates.
FAA could accept to modify the LSA rule so that foreign TC aircraft could
be accepted.
The Agency has concluded that on balance it was preferable to explore the
Page 184 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
non-ICAO RTC for CS-LSA aeroplanes. Bilateral agreements will need to be
updated to include these principles.
comment 227 comment by: Aero-Club of Switzerland
response Noted
It is acceptable to the Aero-Club of Switzerland to see LSA covered by the ELA
process. A participation in the ASTM International Standard is supported
The Agency thanks the commentator for their support.
comment 232 comment by: Filippo De Florio
Light Sport Aeroplanes.
A number of stakeolders proposed the creation of a category
comparable to the US Light Sport Aircraft rule.
The LSA has been very successful in USA, giving a lot of people the
possibility to realise safely and at low cost the dream of flight.
The creation in Europe of a LSA cat. for which the main « alleviation » is
the adoption of an ASTM standard for a type certification, is a palliative without
simplifications similar to the US LSA rule.
It is true that the Art. 5.2(a) of the Regulation 216/2008 requires a TC
for the products, but the point 4 of the same article presents a series of
derogations : the LSA cat. could have been one of them…..
If we consider that most of the types of LSA in USA are produced by
European manufacturers, we are loosing what could have been a real
simplification for the ELAs and
a great benefit for what is considered an important sector of aviation.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
comment 232 comment by: Filippo De Florio
Light Sport Aeroplanes.
A number of stakeolders proposed the creation of a category
comparable to the US Light Sport Aircraft rule.
The LSA has been very successful in USA, giving a lot of people the
possibility to realise safely and at low cost the dream of flight.
The creation in Europe of a LSA cat. for which the main « alleviation » is
the adoption of an ASTM standard for a type certification, is a palliative without
simplifications similar to the US LSA rule.
It is true that the Art. 5.2(a) of the Regulation 216/2008 requires a TC
for the products, but the point 4 of the same article presents a series of
derogations : the LSA cat. could have been one of them…..
If we consider that most of the types of LSA in USA are produced by
European manufacturers, we are loosing what could have been a real
simplification for the ELAs and
a great benefit for what is considered an important sector of aviation.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 1 and 2 on the two-phase approach.
Page 185 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 241 comment by: Ronald MEYER
response Noted
Comment 2
Page 10 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - Creation of a Certification Specification for Light
Sport Aeroplanes
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high,
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As a fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, than could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries, where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II), it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3, 4 and 5 relative to demonstration of
capability for design, production and combined DOA/POA.
comment 259 comment by: Gorden WIEGELS
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Page 186 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3, 4 and 5 relative to demonstration of
capability for design, production and combined DOA/POA.
comment 260 comment by: Gorden WIEGELS
The slight differences have a noticeable effect to the product:
A limitation do Day VFR only is considered not acceptable, as the
standard explicitly provides requirements for night VFR (already now)
and IFR (upcoming right now) operation.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not
mean, that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or
IFR. This still requires the proper license with endorsement. Also,
requirements to equipment for operation at night and under IFR are
also not overruled. So allowing principally the usage of the aircraft in
this conditions, under the limitations of the ELA concept, does not pose
a factual reduction in level of safety. This can be clearly verified through
the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
It is in the very nature of the ASTM standard, to evolve, in order to
further raise the level of safety and keep the requirements always up to
date. For FAA registered LSA it is a must, after a certain transition time,
for the applicant to upgrade his design in line with newer standards. In
the implementation proposed by EASA, an applicant may choose to stay
on the lower level, selling an aircraft of the same category at a lower
level of qualification, whilst others are forced to update, as they already
have to do when they sell to FAA world.
response Not accepted
Relative to limitations:
IMC and night VFR may also be accepted when complying with an appropriate
appendix to CS-LSA. This appendix will include in particular the necessary
additional specifications for power plant and systems.
Relative to ASTM standards:
The described system has merit; however, the system provided by TC provides
a legal certainty to the applicant. This does not prevent the applicant from
upgrading the aircraft in accordance with Part-21 and the fees and charges
regulation. The flexibility provided by the special conditions already
incorporated into Part-21 is comparable to the flexibility of ASTM process to
upgrade the standards.
comment 275 comment by: Klaus Erger
Comment 5
Page 10 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the
draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
Creation of a Certification Specification for Light Sport Aeroplanes
Comment 2 valid also here.
Comment 6
Page 10 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the
draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
Creation of a Certification Specification for Light Sport Aeroplanes
The slight differences have a noticeable effect to the product:
Page 187 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
- A limitation do Day VFR only is considered not acceptable, as the standard
explicitly provides requirements for night VFR (already now) and IFR
(upcoming right now) operation.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not mean,
that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or IFR. This still
requires the proper license with endorsement. Also, requirements to equipment
for operation at night and under IFR are also not overruled. So allowing
principally the usage of the aircraft in this conditions, under the limitations of
the ELA concept, does not pose a factual reduction in level of safety. This can
be clearly verified through the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
- It is in the very nature of the ASTM standard, to evolve, in order to further
raise the level of safety and keep the requirements always up to date. For FAA
registered LSA it is a must, after a certain transition time, for the applicant to
upgrade his design in line with newer standards. In the implementation
proposed by EASA, an applicant may choose to stay on the lower level, selling
an aircraft of the same category at a lower level of qualification, whilst others
are forced to update, as they already have to do when they sell to FAA world.
response Partially accepted
Relative to limitations:
IMC and night VFR may also be accepted when complying with an appropriate
appendix to CS-LSA. This appendix will include in particular the necessary
additional specifications for power plant and systems.
Relative to ASTM standards:
The described system has merit; however, the system provided by TC provides
a legal certainty to the applicant. This does not prevent the applicant from
upgrading the aircraft in accordance with Part-21 and the fees and charges
regulation. The flexibility provided by the special conditions already
incorporated into Part-21 is comparable to the flexibility of ASTM process to
upgrade the standards.
comment 291 comment by: Karg
response Noted
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights -
mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world - in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are already flying (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II), it is proven that deregulation in general is not reason for
less safety, much more it can even improve safety.
Page 188 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3, 4 and 5 relative to demonstration of
capability for design, production and combined DOA/POA.
comment 292 comment by: Karg
The slight differences have a noticeable effect to the product:
- A limitation do Day VFR only is considered not acceptable, as the
standard explicitly provides requirements for night VFR (already now)
and IFR (upcoming right now) operation.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not
mean that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or
IFR. This still requires the proper license with endorsement. Also,
requirements to equipment for operation at night and under IFR are
also not overruled. So allowing principally the usage of the aircraft in
these conditions, under the limitations of the ELA concept, does not
pose a factual reduction in level of safety. This can be clearly verified
through the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
- It is in the very nature of the ASTM standard, to evolve, in order to
further raise the level of safety and keep the requirements always up to
date. For FAA registered LSA it is a must, after a certain transition time,
for the applicant to upgrade his design in line with newer standards. In
the implementation proposed by EASA, an applicant may choose to stay
on the lower level, selling an aircraft of the same category at a lower
level of qualification, whilst others are forced to update, as they already
have to do when they sell to FAA world.
response Not accepted
Relative to limitations:
IMC and night VFR may also be accepted when complying with an appropriate
appendix to CS-LSA. This appendix will include in particular the necessary
additional specifications for power plant and systems.
Relative to ASTM standards:
The described system has merit; however, the system provided by TC provides
a legal certainty to the applicant. This does not prevent the applicant from
upgrading the aircraft in accordance with Part-21 and the fees and charges
regulation. The flexibility provided by the special conditions already
incorporated into Part-21 is comparable to the flexibility of ASTM process to
upgrade the standards.
comment 313 comment by: TECNAM
response Noted
Comment 2 valid also here.
Please see reply to comment No 308.
comment 314 comment by: TECNAM
The slight differences have a noticeable effect to the product:
- A limitation do Day VFR only is considered not acceptable, as the
standard explicitly provides requirements for night VFR (already now)
and IFR (upcoming right now) operation.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not
Page 189 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
mean, that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or
IFR. This still requires the proper license with endorsement. Also,
requirements to equipment for operation at night and under IFR are
also not overruled. So allowing principally the usage of the aircraft in
this conditions, under the limitations of the ELA concept, does not pose
a factual reduction in level of safety. This can be clearly verified through
the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
It is in the very nature of the ASTM standard, to evolve, in order to further
raise the level of safety and keep the requirements always up to date. For FAA
registered LSA it is a must, after a certain transition time, for the applicant to
upgrade his design in line with newer standards. In the implementation
proposed by EASA, an applicant may choose to stay on the lower level, selling
an aircraft of the same category at a lower level of qualification, whilst others
are forced to update, as they already have to do when they sell to FAA world
response Not accepted
Relative to limitations:
IMC and night VFR may also be accepted when complying with an appropriate
appendix to CS-LSA. This appendix will include in particular the necessary
additional specifications for power plant and systems.
Relative to ASTM standards:
The described system has merit; however, the system provided by TC provides
a legal certainty to the applicant. This does not prevent the applicant from
upgrading the aircraft in accordance with Part-21 and the fees and charges
regulation. The flexibility provided by the special conditions already
incorporated into Part-21 is comparable to the flexibility of ASTM process to
upgrade the standards.
comment 344 comment by: Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Switzerland
Creation of a certification specification for Light Sport Aeroplane:
For aircraft up to 600kg, it is proposed to create a CS-LSA code by reference to
the ASTM standard that is used in the FAA light sport aircraft rule.
Comments:
The harmonization between FAA and EASA is welcomed. However, EASA
was not involved in the definition of the ASTM standard used for light
sport aircraft and has no control on this regulatory work.
EASA shall ensure that the essential requirements as defined in annex I
of the regulation (EC) N° 216/2008 are specified without gaps in the
ASTM standard before they can be adopted.
The essential requirement 1.a.4 concerning the effect of cyclic loading
(fatigue) is not addressed in ASTM F2245-042 for LSA powered fixed
wing light sport aircraft.
Aircraft designed without margins according to ASTM F2245-04 have a level of
stress which is 33% above the maximum level of stress which would be
allowed for an aircraft designed without margin according to CS-VLA. This
would lead to a reduction of the life by a factor of more than 8 for airplane
build with aluminium alloy3. As a consequence it is likely that fatigue failure
will occur during the an-ticipated life for aircraft having no margins but being
fully compliant to ASTM F 2245-04.
It is therefore considered as not acceptable from the legal and technically point
of view to adopt the ASMT standard in its current definition without the
addition of a certification specification for the essen-tial requirement 1.a.4.
Page 190 of 446

esponse Accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
This essential requirement is adequately specified in CS-VLA 572 and
associated guidance material and can be fulfilled during the design of an
aircraft without additional cost.
The proposed content of the CS-LSA is not adequate as it defines an
applicability which is out-side the scope of the proposed applicable
airworthiness code (see FAR 1.1 listed in appendix II, entered in the file
with all FOCA comments attached to the title page). In particular, the
EASA proposed rules allows for:
- higher stall speeds in clean configuration (LSA defines stalls speed in clean
configuration),
- higher maximum level flight speed at maximum continuous power (no limit
for ELA, limited to 120kts for LSA),
- variable pitch propeller and retractable landing gear.
As a consequence, the ASTM F2254 does not cover those aspects.
The process to update CS-LSA needs to be addressed: the meaning of
"close to dynamic refer-ence" contained in NPA Attachment 2 has to be
clarified and its effectiveness evaluated.
1 See German BFU accident report 3X041-0/05 dated April 2007 page 20.
2 Current accepted FAA standard is F2245-06.
3 This was shown on the basis of an analysis using Miner rules, the utilisation spectrum of AC23-13A and the material
data from FAA AR-MMPDS-01 for 2024 aluminium alloy. The details of this analysis can be provided to EASA on request.
For harmonisation with FAA please see CRD Part I paragraph 10.
For relations with ASTM please see CRD Part I paragraph 8.
For the fatigue issue, please see CRD Part I paragraph 8.
comment 362 comment by: O. Reinhardt / Flightdesign
response Noted
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
This comment is also valid for several other locations as linked, and for the
Who does what- Table, there section "organisational approval" (not possible to
link exactly)
Page 191 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3, 4 and 5 relative to demonstration of
capability for design, production and combined DOA/POA.
comment 366 comment by: O. Reinhardt / Flightdesign
The slight differences have a noticeable effect to the product:
response Not accepted
- A limitation do Day VFR only is considered not acceptable, as the
standard explicitly provides requirements for night VFR (already now)
and IFR (upcoming right now) operation.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not
mean, that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or
IFR. This still requires the proper license with endorsement. Also,
requirements to equipment for operation at night and under IFR are
also not overruled. So allowing principally the usage of the aircraft in
this conditions, under the limitations of the ELA concept, does not pose
a factual reduction in level of safety. This can be clearly verified through
the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
- It is in the very nature of the ASTM standard, to evolve, in order to
further raise the level of safety and keep the requirements always up to
date. For FAA registered LSA it is a must, after a certain transition time,
for the applicant to upgrade his design in line with newer standards. In
the implementation proposed by EASA, an applicant may choose to stay
on the lower level, selling an aircraft of the same category at a lower
level of qualification, whilst others are forced to update, as they already
have to do when they sell to FAA world.
Relative to limitations:
IMC and night VFR may also be accepted when complying with an appropriate
appendix to CS-LSA. This appendix will include in particular the necessary
additional specifications for power plant and systems.
Relative to ASTM standards:
The described system has merit; however, the system provided by TC provides
a legal certainty to the applicant. This does not prevent the applicant from
upgrading the aircraft in accordance with Part-21 and the fees and charges
regulation. The flexibility provided by the special conditions already
incorporated into Part-21 is comparable to the flexibility of ASTM process to
upgrade the standards.
comment 383 comment by: Thomas Wendt
Comment 5
Page 10 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - Creation of a Certification Specification for Light
Sport Aeroplanes
Comment 2 valid also here.
Comment 6
Page 10 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Page 192 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Aircraft Process - Creation of a Certification Specification for Light
Sport Aeroplanes
The slight differences have a noticeable effect to the product:
response Not accepted
- A limitation do Day VFR only is considered not acceptable, as the
standard explicitly provides requirements for night VFR (already now)
and IFR (upcoming right now) operation.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not
mean, that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or
IFR. This still requires the proper license with endorsement. Also,
requirements to equipment for operation at night and under IFR are
also not overruled. So allowing principally the usage of the aircraft in
this conditions, under the limitations of the ELA concept, does not pose
a factual reduction in level of safety. This can be clearly verified through
the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
- It is in the very nature of the ASTM standard, to evolve, in order to
further raise the level of safety and keep the requirements always up to
date. For FAA registered LSA it is a must, after a certain transition time,
for the applicant to upgrade his design in line with newer standards. In
the implementation proposed by EASA, an applicant may choose to stay
on the lower level, selling an aircraft of the same category at a lower
level of qualification, whilst others are forced to update, as they already
have to do when they sell to FAA world.
Relative to limitations:
IMC and night VFR may also be accepted when complying with an appropriate
appendix to CS-LSA. This appendix will include in particular the necessary
additional specifications for power plant and systems.
Relative to ASTM standards:
The described system has merit; however, the system provided by TC provides
a legal certainty to the applicant. This does not prevent the applicant from
upgrading the aircraft in accordance with Part-21 and the fees and charges
regulation. The flexibility provided by the special conditions already
incorporated into Part-21 is comparable to the flexibility of ASTM process to
upgrade the standards.
comment 400 comment by: Flight Design GmbH Matthias Betsch CEO
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
Page 193 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3, 4 and 5 relative to demonstration of
capability for design, production and combined DOA/POA.
comment 404 comment by: Flight Design GmbH Matthias Betsch CEO
The slight differences have a noticeable effect to the product:
- A limitation do Day VFR only is considered not acceptable, as the
standard explicitly provides requirements for night VFR (already now)
and IFR (upcoming right now) operation.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not
mean, that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or
IFR. This still requires the proper license with endorsement. Also,
requirements to equipment for operation at night and under IFR are
also not overruled. So allowing principally the usage of the aircraft in
this conditions, under the limitations of the ELA concept, does not pose
a factual reduction in level of safety. This can be clearly verified through
the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
- It is in the very nature of the ASTM standard, to evolve, in order to
further raise the level of safety and keep the requirements always up to
date. For FAA registered LSA it is a must, after a certain transition time,
for the applicant to upgrade his design in line with newer standards. In
the implementation proposed by EASA, an applicant may choose to stay
on the lower level, selling an aircraft of the same category at a lower
level of qualification, whilst others are forced to update, as they already
have to do when they sell to FAA world.
response Not accepted
Relative to limitations:
IMC and night VFR may also be accepted when complying with an appropriate
appendix to CS-LSA. This appendix will include in particular the necessary
additional specifications for power plant and systems.
Relative to ASTM standards:
The described system has merit; however, the system provided by TC provides
a legal certainty to the applicant. This does not prevent the applicant from
upgrading the aircraft in accordance with Part-21 and the fees and charges
regulation. The flexibility provided by the special conditions already
incorporated into Part-21 is comparable to the flexibility of ASTM process to
upgrade the standards.
comment 407 comment by: TECNAM
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
Page 194 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3, 4 and 5 relative to demonstration of
capability for design, production and combined DOA/POA.
comment 408 comment by: TECNAM
The slight differences have a noticeable effect to the product:
- A limitation do Day VFR only is considered not acceptable, as the
standard explicitly provides requirements for night VFR (already now)
and IFR (upcoming right now) operation.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not
mean, that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or
IFR. This still requires the proper license with endorsement. Also,
requirements to equipment for operation at night and under IFR are
also not overruled. So allowing principally the usage of the aircraft in
this conditions, under the limitations of the ELA concept, does not pose
a factual reduction in level of safety. This can be clearly verified through
the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
- It is in the very nature of the ASTM standard, to evolve, in order to
further raise the level of safety and keep the requirements always up to
date. For FAA registered LSA it is a must, after a certain transition time,
for the applicant to upgrade his design in line with newer standards. In
the implementation proposed by EASA, an applicant may choose to stay
on the lower level, selling an aircraft of the same category at a lower
level of qualification, whilst others are forced to update, as they already
have to do when they sell to FAA world.
response Not accepted
Relative to limitations:
IMC and night VFR may also be accepted when complying with an appropriate
appendix to CS-LSA. This appendix will include in particular the necessary
additional specifications for power plant and systems.
Relative to ASTM standards:
The described system has merit; however, the system provided by TC provides
a legal certainty to the applicant. This does not prevent the applicant from
upgrading the aircraft in accordance with Part-21 and the fees and charges
regulation. The flexibility provided by the special conditions already
incorporated into Part-21 is comparable to the flexibility of ASTM process to
upgrade the standards.
Page 195 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 421 comment by: SAMA Swiss Aircraft Maintenance Association
We support the creation of a LSA-type of category with 'self-certification', e.g.
openly based on product liability with the least possible involvment of state
responsibilities. If EASA's choice is not to use the same definitions as the FAA
for that category, it should be considered to extend the weight and seat
capacity limitations in order to allow a further development of the category
which we see as a technology driver, in particular in respect to environmental
characteristics. LSA could eventually evolve and replace VLA requirements.
response Not accepted
We do not propose to adopt at this stage the LSA concept as described here.
This might be an outcome of the task BR-010 (Please see CRD Part I
paragraph 2).
We have not proposed to change MTOM or number of seats in the European
LSA compared to the US LSA: we have proposed to change other elements of
the definitions (e.g. no speed limit) and added specific requirements to cover
these extensions (please refer to CRD Part I paragraph 8).
comment 434 comment by: Light Aircraft Association UK
response Noted
The creation of a system that uses the fundamental element of the US system
would seem like a sensible move. Problems may arise in that the ASTM F2245
standard is a developing and changing document. Although the FAA (and, in
the future, EASA) is involved in the development of the standard, there doesn't
appear to be any guarantee that it will develop in a way acceptable to EASA.
The proposals do include provision for augmenting the ASTM with advisory
material and/or additional requirements in the CS-LSA covering document.
It is assumed (but not stated) that the usual grand-fathering principle would
be maintained: the aircraft would continue to be assessed against the chosen
airworthiness standard at the issue state prevailing at the time of its approval
(or notified application).
Similarly, it is not clear how the following situation would be dealt with: an
existing European design previously 'approved' against issue 2 of the ASTM in
the US, now to be approved in Europe - would it be approved against issue 2 of
the ASTM or the latest issue?
Concerning the relations with ASTM, please see CRD Part I paragraph 8.
The point about grand-fathering is understood as meaning certification of
‘derivatives’: the general principles defined in the change product rule in Part
21 (21A.101) for aircraft below 6000 lbs would apply.
Concerning the third point, it would be the latest standards as the provisions of
existing bilateral agreements do not cover this case.
comment 438 comment by: P&M Aviation
The Creation of a Certification Specification For Light Sport Aeroplanes only
appears to cater for three axis aircraft and does not include other types of
aircraft such as Weight Shift Microlights and this category of aircraft should be
included. The ASTM standard F-2317 covers this code, although it could benefit
from a few areas being stricter.
response Not accepted
Page 196 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Microlight aircraft are Annex II aircraft and outside the scope of the EASA
remit. Please note also that there is a very strong consensus among
stakeholders not to modify Annex II.
comment 453 comment by: www.fascination-pilots.de
response Noted
Comment 2 valid also here.
Please see reply to comment No 449.
comment 454 comment by: www.fascination-pilots.de
The slight differences have a noticeable effect to the product:
- A limitation do Day VFR only is considered not acceptable, as the
standard explicitly provides requirements for night VFR (already now)
and IFR (upcoming right now) operation.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not
mean, that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or
IFR. This still requires the proper license with endorsement. Also,
requirements to equipment for operation at night and under IFR are
also not overruled. So allowing principally the usage of the aircraft in
this conditions, under the limitations of the ELA concept, does not pose
a factual reduction in level of safety. This can be clearly verified through
the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
- It is in the very nature of the ASTM standard, to evolve, in order to
further raise the level of safety and keep the requirements always up to
date. For FAA registered LSA it is a must, after a certain transition time,
for the applicant to upgrade his design in line with newer standards. In
the implementation proposed by EASA, an applicant may choose to stay
on the lower level, selling an aircraft of the same category at a lower
level of qualification, whilst others are forced to update, as they already
have to do when they sell to FAA world.
response Not accepted
Relative to limitations:
IMC and night VFR may also be accepted when complying with an appropriate
appendix to CS-LSA. This appendix will include in particular the necessary
additional specifications for power plant and systems.
Relative to ASTM standards:
The described system has merit; however, the system provided by TC provides
a legal certainty to the applicant. This does not prevent the applicant from
upgrading the aircraft in accordance with Part-21 and the fees and charges
regulation. The flexibility provided by the special conditions already
incorporated into Part-21 is comparable to the flexibility of ASTM process to
upgrade the standards.
comment 489 comment by: light-wings Oliver Liedmann
response Noted
Comment 2 valid also here.
Please see reply to comment No 483.
Page 197 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 490 comment by: light-wings Oliver Liedmann
The slight differences have a noticeable effect to the product:
- A limitation do Day VFR only is considered not acceptable, as the
standard explicitly provides requirements for night VFR (already now)
and IFR (upcoming right now) operation.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not
mean, that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or
IFR. This still requires the proper license with endorsement. Also,
requirements to equipment for operation at night and under IFR are
also not overruled. So allowing principally the usage of the aircraft in
this conditions, under the limitations of the ELA concept, does not pose
a factual reduction in level of safety. This can be clearly verified through
the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
- It is in the very nature of the ASTM standard, to evolve, in order to
further raise the level of safety and keep the requirements always up to
date. For FAA registered LSA it is a must, after a certain transition time,
for the applicant to upgrade his design in line with newer standards. In
the implementation proposed by EASA, an applicant may choose to stay
on the lower level, selling an aircraft of the same category at a lower
level of qualification, whilst others are forced to update, as they already
have to do when they sell to FAA world.
response Not accepted
Relative to limitations:
IMC and night VFR may also be accepted when complying with an appropriate
appendix to CS-LSA. This appendix will include in particular the necessary
additional specifications for power plant and systems.
Relative to ASTM standards:
The described system has merit; however, the system provided by TC provides
a legal certainty to the applicant. This does not prevent the applicant from
upgrading the aircraft in accordance with Part-21 and the fees and charges
regulation. The flexibility provided by the special conditions already
incorporated into Part-21 is comparable to the flexibility of ASTM process to
upgrade the standards.
comment 505 comment by: aeroklaus
response Noted
Comment 5
Page 10 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the
draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
Creation of a Certification Specification for Light Sport Aeroplanes
Comment 2 valid also here.
Pleae see reply to comment No 502.
comment 506 comment by: aeroklaus
Comment 6
Page 10 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the
draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
Page 198 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Creation of a Certification Specification for Light Sport Aeroplanes
The slight differences have a noticeable effect to the product:
A limitation do Day VFR only is considered not acceptable, as the standard
explicitly provides requirements for night VFR (already now) and IFR
(upcoming right now) operation. We are talking here of initial airworthiness.
So opening this up does not mean, that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the
aircraft night VFR or IFR. This still requires the proper license with
endorsement. Also, requirements to equipment for operation at night and
under IFR are also not overruled. So allowing principally the usage of the
aircraft in this conditions, under the limitations of the ELA concept, does not
pose a factual reduction in level of safety. This can be clearly verified through
the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
It is in the very nature of the ASTM standard, to evolve, in order to further
raise the level of safety and keep the requirements always up to date. For FAA
registered LSA it is a must, after a certain transition time, for the applicant to
upgrade his design in line with newer standards. In the implementation
proposed by EASA, an applicant may choose to stay on the lower level, selling
an aircraft of the same category at a lower level of qualification, whilst others
are forced to update, as they already have to do when they sell to FAA world.
response Not accepted
Relative to limitations:
IMC and night VFR may also be accepted when complying with an appropriate
appendix to CS-LSA. This appendix will include in particular the necessary
additional specifications for power plant and systems.
Relative to ASTM standards:
The described system has merit; however, the system provided by TC provides
a legal certainty to the applicant. This does not prevent the applicant from
upgrading the aircraft in accordance with Part-21 and the fees and charges
regulation. The flexibility provided by the special conditions already
incorporated into Part-21 is comparable to the flexibility of ASTM process to
upgrade the standards.
comment 585 comment by: klaus M
response Noted
Comment 5
Page 10 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the
draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
Creation of a Certification Specification for Light Sport Aeroplanes
Comment 2 valid also here.
Please see response to comment No 582.
comment 586 comment by: klaus M
Comment 6
Page 10 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the
draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
Creation of a Certification Specification for Light Sport Aeroplanes
The slight differences have a noticeable effect to the product:
- A limitation do Day VFR only is considered not acceptable, as the standard
Page 199 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
explicitly provides requirements for night VFR (already now) and IFR
(upcoming right now) operation.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not mean,
that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or IFR. This still
requires the proper license with endorsement. Also, requirements to equipment
for operation at night and under IFR are also not overruled. So allowing
principally the usage of the aircraft in this conditions, under the limitations of
the ELA concept, does not pose a factual reduction in level of safety. This can
be clearly verified through the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
- It is in the very nature of the ASTM standard, to evolve, in order to further
raise the level of safety and keep the requirements always up to date. For FAA
registered LSA it is a must, after a certain transition time, for the applicant to
upgrade his design in line with newer standards. In the implementation
proposed by EASA, an applicant may choose to stay on the lower level, selling
an aircraft of the same category at a lower level of qualification, whilst others
are forced to update, as they already have to do when they sell to FAA world.
response Not accepted
Relative to limitations:
IMC and night VFR may also be accepted when complying with an appropriate
appendix to CS-LSA. This appendix will include in particular the necessary
additional specifications for power plant and systems.
Relative to ASTM standards:
The described system has merit; however, the system provided by TC provides
a legal certainty to the applicant. This does not prevent the applicant from
upgrading the aircraft in accordance with Part-21 and the fees and charges
regulation. The flexibility provided by the special conditions already
incorporated into Part-21 is comparable to the flexibility of ASTM process to
upgrade the standards.
comment 606 comment by: Cessna Aircraft Company
Negative - the proposal to limit aircraft to "Day VFR" manufacture standards
does not promote safe flying.
Proposal 1: Limiting the certification of a LSA 3 aircraft to "VFR day" operation
only is counter productive to flight safety. The pilot flying the aircraft may be
limited to "VFR day" flight only, but the aircraft manufacturer needs the
flexibility to produce an aircraft with the required safety and operating
equipment to fly at night and in IFR operations. One of the leading causes of
fatal general aviation accidents is a pilots inability to fly or recover an aircraft
after entering clouds, fog, heavy rain, or other like weather condition. Not
allowing an aircraft to be equipped with basic night and IFR equipment could
quickly translate to increased fatal accident rates in Europe. Manufacturers
need to retain the ability to produce aircraft equipped to fly at night and in IFR
conditions.
response Not accepted
Relative to limitations:
IMC and night VFR may also be accepted when complying with an appropriate
appendix to CS-LSA. This appendix will include in particular the necessary
additional specifications for power plant and systems.
Relative to ASTM standards:
Page 200 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
The described system has merit; however, the system provided by TC provides
a legal certainty to the applicant. This does not prevent the applicant from
upgrading the aircraft in accordance with Part-21 and the fees and charges
regulation. The flexibility provided by the special conditions already
incorporated into Part-21 is comparable to the flexibility of ASTM process to
upgrade the standards.
comment 611 comment by: Peter VON BURG
LSA standard is not limited to day VFR and non-IFR operation. Thus we see no
reason to limit the operation in the initial airworthiness code different than
LSA.
It is the nature of the ASTM standart to be open and to envolve in order to
include experience and raise the level of savety even during the lifetime of an
aircraft. The EASA implementation does not include this process.
It is in the nature of the ASTM standard to leafe the responsibility at the
designer/manufacturer (see F2245-07, 1.3 This standard does not purport to
address all of the safety concerns, if any, ..... It is the responsibility of the user
....).
Thus the ASTM standard calls for a responsible user and is almost impossible
to be certified by an independent certification agency.
response Not accepted
Relative to limitations:
IMC and night VFR may also be accepted when complying with an appropriate
appendix to CS-LSA. This appendix will include in particular the necessary
additional specifications for power plant and systems.
Relative to ASTM standards:
The described system has merit; however, the system provided by TC provides
a legal certainty to the applicant. This does not prevent the applicant from
upgrading the aircraft in accordance with Part-21 and the fees and charges
regulation. The flexibility provided by the special conditions already
incorporated into Part-21 is comparable to the flexibility of ASTM process to
upgrade the standards.
comment 622 comment by: European Sailplane Manufacturers
The European sailplane manufacturers feel that inclusion of part of the
certification standards of the American LSA system symply as a new CS
standard might not really be reflecting the good experiences made in the USA.
There a new system was created which mostly was aimed for minimum
authority (FAA) participation.
This made clear to manufacturers and operators that they have to bear the
responsibility in their sector of aviation.
Parallel this made this part of aviation much more affordable.
This propably explains the high level of acceptance on the side of pilots and
manufacturers and the economic success.
It is a pity that the only consequence taken by EASA within MDM.032 from this
excellent US experience is now the adaption of an airworthiness code.
Page 201 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
This was not introduced at this stage but might be an outcome of Task BR.010.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 2.
comment 630 comment by: Martin Josef Warken
response Noted
Comment 5
Page 10 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - Creation of a Certification Specification for Light
Sport Aeroplanes
Comment 2 valid also here.
Please see reply to comment No 628.
comment 631 comment by: Martin Josef Warken
Comment 6
Page 10 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - Creation of a Certification Specification for Light
Sport Aeroplanes
The slight differences have a noticeable effect to the product:
response Not accepted
- A limitation do Day VFR only is considered not acceptable, as the
standard explicitly provides requirements for night VFR (already now)
and IFR (upcoming right now) operation.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not
mean, that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or
IFR. This still requires the proper license with endorsement. Also,
requirements to equipment for operation at night and under IFR are
also not overruled. So allowing principally the usage of the aircraft in
this conditions, under the limitations of the ELA concept, does not pose
a factual reduction in level of safety. This can be clearly verified through
the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
- It is in the very nature of the ASTM standard, to evolve, in order to
further raise the level of safety and keep the requirements always up to
date. For FAA registered LSA it is a must, after a certain transition time,
for the applicant to upgrade his design in line with newer standards. In
the implementation proposed by EASA, an applicant may choose to stay
on the lower level, selling an aircraft of the same category at a lower
level of qualification, whilst others are forced to update, as they already
have to do when they sell to FAA world.
Relative to limitations:
IMC and night VFR may also be accepted when complying with an appropriate
appendix to CS-LSA. This appendix will include in particular the necessary
additional specifications for power plant and systems.
Relative to ASTM standards:
Page 202 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
The described system has merit; however, the system provided by TC provides
a legal certainty to the applicant. This does not prevent the applicant from
upgrading the aircraft in accordance with Part-21 and the fees and charges
regulation. The flexibility provided by the special conditions already
incorporated into Part-21 is comparable to the flexibility of ASTM process to
upgrade the standards.
comment 660 comment by: EAA
Page 10 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the
draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light Aircraft Process -
Creation of a Certification Specification for Light Sport Aeroplanes
Negative - the proposal to limit aircraft to "Day VFR" manufacture standards
does not promote safe flying.
Proposal 1: Limiting the certification of a LSA 3 aircraft to "VFR day" operation
only is counter productive to flight safety. The pilot flying the aircraft may be
limited to "VFR day" flight only, but the aircraft manufacturer needs the
flexibility to produce an aircraft with the required safety and operating
equipment to fly at night and in IFR operations. One of the leading causes of
fatal general aviation accidents is a pilot's inability to fly or recover an aircraft
after entering clouds, fog, heavy rain, or other like weather conditions. Not
allowing an aircraft to be equipped with basic night and IFR equipment could
quickly translate to increased fatal accident rates in Europe. Manufacturers
need to retain the ability to produce aircraft equipped to fly at night and in IFR
conditions.
response Not accepted
Relative to limitations:
IMC and night VFR may also be accepted when complying with an appropriate
appendix to CS-LSA. This appendix will include in particular the necessary
additional specifications for power plant and systems.
Relative to ASTM standards:
The described system has merit; however, the system provided by TC provides
a legal certainty to the applicant. This does not prevent the applicant from
upgrading the aircraft in accordance with Part-21 and the fees and charges
regulation. The flexibility provided by the special conditions already
incorporated into Part-21 is comparable to the flexibility of ASTM process to
upgrade the standards.
comment 697 comment by: Deutscher Aero Club e.V. (DAeC)
response Noted
DAeC welcomes the creation of Certification Specifications for Light Sport
Aeroplanes.
The Agency thanks the commentator for their support.
comment 708 comment by: procomposite
The slight differences have a noticeable effect to the product:
- A limitation do Day VFR only is considered not acceptable, as the
Page 203 of 446

esponse Not accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
standard explicitly provides requirements for night VFR (already now)
and IFR (upcoming right now) operation.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not
mean, that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or
IFR. This still requires the proper license with endorsement. Also,
requirements to equipment for operation at night and under IFR are
also not overruled. So allowing principally the usage of the aircraft in
this conditions, under the limitations of the ELA concept, does not pose
a factual reduction in level of safety. This can be clearly verified through
the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
- It is in the very nature of the ASTM standard, to evolve, in order to
further raise the level of safety and keep the requirements always up to
date. For FAA registered LSA it is a must, after a certain transition time,
for the applicant to upgrade his design in line with newer standards. In
the implementation proposed by EASA, an applicant may choose to stay
on the lower level, selling an aircraft of the same category at a lower
level of qualification, whilst others are forced to update, as they already
have to do when they sell to FAA world.
Relative to limitations:
IMC and night VFR may also be accepted when complying with an appropriate
appendix to CS-LSA. This appendix will include in particular the necessary
additional specifications for power plant and systems.
Relative to ASTM standards:
The described system has merit; however, the system provided by TC provides
a legal certainty to the applicant. This does not prevent the applicant from
upgrading the aircraft in accordance with Part-21 and the fees and charges
regulation. The flexibility provided by the special conditions already
incorporated into Part-21 is comparable to the flexibility of ASTM process to
upgrade the standards.
comment 729 comment by: Oliver
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Page 204 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3, 4 and 5 relative to demonstration of
capability for design, production and combined DOA/POA.
comment 730 comment by: Oliver
The slight differences have a noticeable effect to the product:
- A limitation do Day VFR only is considered not acceptable, as the standard
explicitly provides requirements for night VFR (already now) and IFR
(upcoming right now) operation.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not mean,
that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or IFR. This still
requires the proper license with endorsement. Also, requirements to equipment
for operation at night and under IFR are also not overruled. So allowing
principally the usage of the aircraft in this conditions, under the limitations of
the ELA concept, does not pose a factual reduction in level of safety. This can
be clearly verified through the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
- It is in the very nature of the ASTM standard, to evolve, in order to further
raise the level of safety and keep the requirements always up to date. For FAA
registered LSA it is a must, after a certain transition time, for the applicant to
upgrade his design in line with newer standards. In the implementation
proposed by EASA, an applicant may choose to stay on the lower level, selling
an aircraft of the same category at a lower level of qualification, whilst others
are forced to update, as they already have to do when they sell to FAA world.
response Not accepted
Relative to limitations:
IMC and night VFR may also be accepted when complying with an appropriate
appendix to CS-LSA. This appendix will include in particular the necessary
additional specifications for power plant and systems.
Relative to ASTM standards:
The described system has merit; however, the system provided by TC provides
a legal certainty to the applicant. This does not prevent the applicant from
upgrading the aircraft in accordance with Part-21 and the fees and charges
regulation. The flexibility provided by the special conditions already
incorporated into Part-21 is comparable to the flexibility of ASTM process to
upgrade the standards.
comment 755 comment by: Air Marugan
response Noted
Comment 5
Comment 2 valid also here.
Please see reply to comment No 752.
comment 756 comment by: Air Marugan
Comment 6
Page 205 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
The slight differences have a noticeable effect to the product:
- A limitation do Day VFR only is considered not acceptable, as the
standard explicitly provides requirements for night VFR (already now) and IFR
(upcoming right now) operation.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not mean,
that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or IFR. This still
requires the proper license with endorsement. Also, requirements to equipment
for operation at night and under IFR are also not overruled. So allowing
principally the usage of the aircraft in this conditions, under the limitations of
the ELA concept, does not pose a factual reduction in level of safety. This can
be clearly verified through the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
- It is in the very nature of the ASTM standard, to evolve, in order to
further raise the level of safety and keep the requirements always up to date.
For FAA registered LSA it is a must, after a certain transition time, for the
applicant to upgrade his design in line with newer standards. In the
implementation proposed by EASA, an applicant may choose to stay on the
lower level, selling an aircraft of the same category at a lower level of
qualification, whilst others are forced to update, as they already have to do
when they sell to FAA world.
response Not accepted
Relative to limitations:
IMC and night VFR may also be accepted when complying with an appropriate
appendix to CS-LSA. This appendix will include in particular the necessary
additional specifications for power plant and systems.
Relative to ASTM standards:
The described system has merit; however, the system provided by TC provides
a legal certainty to the applicant. This does not prevent the applicant from
upgrading the aircraft in accordance with Part-21 and the fees and charges
regulation. The flexibility provided by the special conditions already
incorporated into Part-21 is comparable to the flexibility of ASTM process to
upgrade the standards.
comment 781 comment by: Herbert HERGET
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high,
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft. There is no connection
visible, that a self declaratio n of design and production quality system and
correctness of results has any negative effect on the level of safety achieved in
operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience, any rising=2 0of
requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with additional
safety. As a fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient market
self control, than could be achieved by Agency control. This is the background
for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with the EASA DOA and
POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO qualifications of
companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing. In all countries,
where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt aircrafts,
Annex II), it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a reason for
less safety and can even improve safety.
Page 206 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3, 4 and 5 relative to demonstration of
capability for design, production and combined DOA/POA.
A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Further considerations on the introduction of standard changes
and standard repairs
p. 10-11
comment 68 comment by: Michael GREINER
response Noted
NOTE:
This comment was made against this section of the NPA. This comment and
the response are however only reflected once at page 6 of this CRD in order to
improve readability.
comment 92 comment by: René Fournier
response Noted
The definition of Certification Specifications for standard changes and repairs is
a welcome concrete simplification that will alleviate burden on stakeholders.
The Agency thanks the commentator for his support.
comment 140 comment by: Fridrich Jan
response Accepted
Mám pochybnosti o tom jak bude fungovat systém jednoduchých a závažných
změn ( minor and major changes) které budou schvalovány EASA
- Jak dlouho to bude trvat? Systém je vhodný pro letouny pod 5,7t - bude to
vhodné I pro LSA?
Je nutné používat ekvivalent AC 43-13 1b a 2b.
Navrhuji:
1/v prvním kroku převzít AC43-13 1a a 1b tak jak je
2/ v dalším kroku jej aktualizovat o nové technologie používané v Evropě
The intention is to include in the first issue of the envisaged CS the material
included in the AC 43-13 1B and 2B. Then the CS will be updated on a yearly
basis: this will allow taking into account the technological progress and
updates of the US AC.
comment 183 comment by: Ingmar Hedblom
The idea to develop dedicated Certification Specifications based on the FAA
Advisory Circulars AC 43-13 1B and 2B is supported. This guidance is widely
used today in maintaining airworthiness and allowed by several member
states.
Since the rulemaking procedure to properly evaluate and approve the content
Page 207 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
may take a considerable time it is suggested that the present FAA circulars are
allowed to be legally used in the meantime via additional derogations in 21A.96
and 21A.436
The Agency thanks the commentator for his support.
The intention is to include in the first issue of the envisaged CS the material
included in the AC 43-13 1B and 2B. Then the CS will be updated on a yearly
basis: this will allow taking into account the technological progress and
updates of the US AC.
comment 191 comment by: Walter Gessky
response Noted
Further considerations on the introduction of standard changes and
standard repairs
It should be clarified that major alterations in the US systems are always
related to minor design changes. This has to be taken into consideration when
using FAR 43.13-2 as basis for standard changes. This should be clarified in
Subpart D.
The intention is to include in the first issue of the envisaged CS the material
included in the AC 43-13 1B and 2B. Then the CS will be updated on a yearly
basis: this will allow taking into account the technological progress and
updates of the US AC.
The CS will contain instructions of use of the US AC in the European context.
comment 231 comment by: Lyndhurst Touchdown
Our company would like the inclusion of airworthiness code FAR 23
amendment 7 as an acceptable airworthiness code.
Justification
response Accepted
This code is widely used internationally and is an accepted code in many
countries.
The code has a proven track record in terms of producing airworthy aircraft.
Designers and manufacturers have experience and understanding of this code
and would use it effectively and efficiently to produce aircraft of high
airworthiness standards.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 2 criteria for ELA1 and ELA2.
comment 435 comment by: Light Aircraft Association UK
In principle, this sounds like a very good way of reducing the burden on the
organisations which will have to approve these modifications and repairs, as
well as the owners. At the moment it's not clear who would be able to conduct
and then authorise these repairs. Given that the proposals represent an
improvement on the current situation with CoA aircraft, this process should be
a benefit. The timescale for issuance of this proposed CS must be coincident
Page 208 of 446

esponse Accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
with the introduction of ELA, otherwise the whole system of repairs and
modifications will be very burdensome on the owners and overwhelming for the
regulators.
The standard changes or repairs will be deemed approved by the Agency when
it is designed in accordance with the envisaged CS. The installation of the
repair will be done in accordance with Part-M. The Agency agrees that the
issue of the CS need to be done rapidly: the first issue of the envisaged CS will
include the material included in the AC 43-13 1B and 2B.
comment 623 comment by: European Sailplane Manufacturers
response Accepted
Inclusion of "Standard Changes and Repairs" is applauded by the European
sailplane manufacturers.
The operation of tens of thousands of sailplanes all over Europe is only possible
if the maintenance stations and repair shops can work with some acceptable
procedures without the need for individual approval.
Part 21 has complicated this very much and some manufacturers have
countered this by including standard changes/repairs to their respective TC´s
via EASA approval of regarding changes.
If this situation could now be rectified by according amendment of Part 21 this
is been considered from the side of the manufacturers as very helpful.
Regarding the often specialized designs and manufacturing techniques for
sailplanes it is proposed to consider assistance from the sailplane
manufacturers when drafting the according CS as mentioned in the NPA.
The Agency thanks the commentator for their support.
The intention is to include in the first issue of the envisaged CS the material
included in the AC 43-13 1B and 2B. Then the CS will be updated on a yearly
basis: this will allow taking into account the technological progress and
updates of the US AC.
As the CS will be published for comments, stakeholders will have an
opportunity to input. When updating the CS, the help of manufacturers will be
appreciated.
comment 686 comment by: Evektor
response Accepted
EVEKTOR position:
introducing system comparable to the one existing in the US would be strong
advantage.
As a first step EVEKTOR suggest to accept current US system as soon as
possible.
As a second step to "update" current US system and create new modern EASA
system of acceptable methods, techniques and practice which would be, of
couse, acceptable by FAA.
The intention is to include in the first issue of the envisaged CS the material
Page 209 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
included in the AC 43-13 1B and 2B. Then the CS will be updated on a yearly
basis: this will allow taking into account the technological progress and
updates of the US AC
comment 710 comment by: Europe Air Sports, VP
response Accepted
We appreciate the position EASA is taking on ICAO Annex 8 Chapter V which is
not being applied to ELA processed aircraft, and the intention of EASA to
produce (or approve) standard procedures for repairs and modifications.
Proposal
For the time being, to the benefit of the owners of aircraft, this should be the
FAA AC 43-13 until EASA has produced its own standard compendium.
The intention is to include in the first issue of the envisaged CS the material
included in the AC 43-13 1B and 2B. Then the CS will be updated on a yearly
basis: this will allow taking into account the technological progress and
updates of the US AC
A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - AMC and GM to be produced or modified
p. 11-12
comment 76 comment by: Dyn'aéro
Commentaires sur le paragraphe 21A.16A (AMC)/ Comments on
paragraph 21A.16A (AMC)
Proposition :
Dyn'Aéro propose que soit ajoutée une AMC 21A.16 A comme suit :
"AMC 21A16A
Airworthiness codes for the aircrafts defined in 21A.14 (b) and (c), the FAR 23
amendment 7 (enabled the 14 th of September, 1969) is an acceptable
airworthiness code."
Raisons :
La plupart des aéronefs en service aujourd'hui dans le cadre d'une
exploitation de loisir ont été certifié sur les bases du code technique
FAR23 Amendement 9.
Ce code a démontré sa pertinence et a donné toute satisfaction au
niveau de la sécurité des vols.
La possibilité d'introduction comme code possible de ce code reconnu
permettrait d'atteindre le même niveau de sécurité et simplifierait
énormément le recours à des AMC pour la plupart des points inadapté à
l'avion légère qui de fait ont été introduit postérieurement à la FAR 23
Amendement 7.
Proposal :
Dyn'Aéro proposes to add a AMC 21A.16 A as follows:
"AMC 21A16A
Airworthiness codes for the aircrafts defined in 21A.14 (b) and (c), the FAR 23
amendment 7 (enabled the 14 th of September, 1969) is an acceptable
airworthiness code."
Reasons :
Page 210 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Most aircraft in service today as part of a recreational operation were
certified on the basis of the airwortiness code FAR23 Amendment 9.
The code has demonstrated its relevance and gave full satisfaction at
the level of flight safety.
The introduction possibility as possible code of this recognized code
would achieve the same level of security and greatly simplify the use of
AMC for most points unsuited to light aircraft which have actually been
introduced after the FAR 23 Amendment 7.
Commentaires sur le paragraphe 21A.16B (AMC) / Comments on
paragraph 21A.16B (AMC)
Proposition :
Dyn'Aéro propose que soit ajoutée une AMC 21A.16 B comme suit :
"AMC 21A16B
Special conditions for the aircrafts defined in 21A.14 (b) and (c),
"AMC 21A16B
Special conditions for aircraft as defined in paragraphs 21A.14 (b) and (c)
1. An acceptable means of compliance developed for an airworthiness code
suitable for light aircraft by a recognized authority can be used as an
acceptable means of compliance by the applicant insofar it was
developed for aircraft like (failing to answer exactly to the definition of
the aircraft applicant).
2. The use of a non-aeronautical accessory but satisfying technical
standard which covers the airworthiness reference code requirements is
considered as an AMC.
3. A reasoning based on experience, insofar as this experiment was
conducted in a sufficiently documented framework, can be considered
as an AMC.
4. Using an AC (Advisory circular) is seen as an AMC insofar as this AC is
directly linked with paragraph to demonstrate.
5. Justifications by calculation will be acceptable to replace static or
dynamic tests insofar as the assumptions of these calculations and used
methods:
- are commonly accepted and,
- have already been validated on similar aircraft by the supplier.
6. Some non-compliances concerning the flight handling qualities as
defined in the relevant CS are acceptable if they do not jeopardize the
safety level in relation with the operating conditions of the aircraft. "
Raisons générales :
Une bonne partie des économies réalisables vient de la possibilité d'utiliser des
moyens de conformités moins contraignants financièrement que les moyens
actuels, ainsi que de limiter certaines actions aux éléments engageant
réellement la sécurité.
L'utilisation des AMC est soulignée dans la NPA mais pas de manière
suffisamment précise.
Raison point 1 :
Un travail important a été réalisé par le passé dans le cadre de rédaction
d'AMC pour les avions légers pour la définition de code technique de
référence. Ce travail a conduit à des AMC dont la pertinence a put déjà être
Page 211 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
vérifié dans le cadre de certification. Ce travail doit être utilisé. Il s'agit, par
exemple, des ACJ de la CS VLA qui sont tout à fait applicable aux paragraphes
correspondants de la CS 23 ou de la FAR 23 Amendement 7.
Raison point 2 :
De nombreux accessoires pouvant être utilisés dans un aéronef sont utilisés
dans des domaines proposant des normes plus contraignante que les normes
aéronautiques. Le fait de pouvoir les utiliser directement dans l'aéronef
uniquement en comparant les codes aéronautiques aux codes en vigueur pour
ses pièces est un gain de temps et d'argent pour l'avionneur sans toucher au
niveau de sécurité de l'aéronef.
Par exemple une ceinture de sécurité automobile répondant à l'UTAC, norme
couvrant les contraintes de la CS VLA ou CS 23 serait utilisable après
comparaison de l'UTAC.
Raison point 3 :
Dans de nombreux pays pour des aéronefs en annexe II de l'EASA, il existe
une obligation de suivit de navigabilité des pièces principales des aéronefs avec
un contrôle de l'autorité. Aussi, le niveau de sécurité des accessoires en
question est d'ors et déjà validé par cette expérience. Il est alors inutile
d'engendrer des coûts supplémentaires pour la certification.
Par exemple L'utilisation d'une roue sans TSo, exploitée dans le cadre de plus
de 100 aéronefs en CNSK (aéronefs en kits en France : code imposant un
suivit de navigabilité vérifié par la DGAC), serait un AMC.
Raison point 4 :
De la même manière que le point 1 des AC ont été réalisés par la FAA basé sur
l'expérience et validé par l'expérience pour la justification de différents points
techniques par des équivalents de sécurités. Aussi, de manière pragmatique, le
niveau de sécurité peut être assuré directement en utilisant ses AC .
L'utilisation de l'AC 20-146 sur les sièges pour le crash serait utilisable comme
AMC pour la justification du crash §23.A.562.
Raison point 5 :
De nombreuses méthodes simplificatrices sont couramment admises dans le
cadre de la conception des avions légers depuis très longtemps. Ces
hypothèses simplificatrices (sur le calcul des charges ou la justification des
pièces) ont démontrés leur pertinence notamment dans le cadre de la
justification d'aéronefs en annexe II de l'EASA. Tout en ne diminuant pas le
niveau de sécurité, l'utilisation de ses méthodes, en particulier lorsque la
technologie est connue et classique, permettrait de diminuer le coût de la
certification.
Exemple : La justification d'un train d'atterrissage mécanique par calcul et
application des charges statiques de la CS est acceptable en lieu et place des
essais dynamiques dans le mesure ou il s'agit de pièces classiques en acier et
avec un calcul par la méthode des poutres longues.
Raison point 6 :
Aucun aéronef léger actuellement certifié ne répond totalement aux codes
techniques de certification en ce qui concerne les qualités de vol. En effet, et
en partie en raison de la faible masse de ses aéronefs et de leur sur
Page 212 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
motorisation (pour certains), il est toujours possible de trouver une légère
instabilité latérale ou longitudinale proche du décrochage. Ou bien, autre
exemple, les aéronefs de voltige par définition sont bien souvent instable
latéralement, et « nécessite une habilité particulière » compte tenu de leur sur
motorisation. Ces non respects ponctuels des qualités de vol définies dans les
codes techniques n'ont jamais démontré avoir eut une influence négative sur le
niveau de sécurité des aéronefs.
D'autre part, il convient de mettre en relation les qualités de vol d'un aéronef
avec son domaine d'utilisation. En effet, l'on ne peut pas demander les mêmes
qualités de vol à un aéronef de compétition monoplace de 300hp piloté par une
élite avec un avion biplace école de 80hp.
En prenant en compte pragmatiquement ce point, il est possible d'alléger les
contraintes pour certaines machines tout en ne pénalisant pas le niveau de
sécurité.
Proposal :
Dyn'Aéro proposes to add a AMC 21A.16 B as follows :
"AMC 21A16B
Special conditions for aircraft as defined in paragraphs 21A.14 (b) and (c)
1. An acceptable means of compliance developed for an airworthiness code
suitable for light aircraft by a recognized authority can be used as an
acceptable means of compliance by the applicant insofar it was
developed for aircraft like (failing to answer exactly to the definition of
the aircraft applicant).
2. The use of a non-aeronautical accessory but satisfying technical
standard which covers the airworthiness reference code requirements is
considered as an AMC.
3. A reasoning based on experience, insofar as this experiment was
conducted in a sufficiently documented framework, can be considered
as an AMC.
4. Using an AC (Advisory circular) is seen as an AMC insofar as this AC is
directly linked with paragraph to demonstrate.
5. Justifications by calculation will be acceptable to replace static or
dynamic tests insofar as the assumptions of these calculations and used
methods:
- are commonly accepted and,
- have already been validated on similar aircraft by the supplier.
6. Some non-compliances concerning the flight handling qualities as
defined in the relevant CS are acceptable if they do not jeopardize the
safety level in relation with the operating conditions of the aircraft. "
General reasons :
Much of the money savings comes from the possibility of using acceptable
means of compliance cheaper than the present ones, as well as to limit certain
actions to the elements involving real safety.
The use of AMC is mentioned in the NPA but not sufficiently precise.
Reason item 1 :
A considerable work has been done in the past in the framework of AMC
elaboration for light aircrafts to define certification reference code. This work
has led to AMC whose relevance has put already be checked as part of
Page 213 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
certification. This work must be used. These include, for example, ACJ of the
CS VLA which are quite applicable to the relevant paragraphs of the CS 23 or
FAR 23 Amendment 7.
Reason item 2 :
Many accessories, which can be used in an aircraft, are used in various
domains proposing standards more stringent than aviation standards. Being
able to use them directly into the aircraft only by comparing the aeronautical
codes with the technical standards are time and money savings for the
manufacturer without affecting the level of safety of the aircraft.
For example, a car safety belt responding to the UTAC, standard which covers
the CS VLA or CS 23 requirements would be suitable after comparison of UTAC.
Reason item 3 :
In many countries and for aircrafts under Annex II of the EASA, there exists an
obligation to follow the airworthiness of the major parts of the aircraft and with
a control by the authority. Also, the safety level of accessories is already
validated by the experience. It is therefore unnecessary to create additional
costs for certification.
For example the use of a wheel without TSo, operated on more than 100 CNSK
aircraft (aircraft kits in France: code imposing an airworthiness following
checked by the DGAC), would be a AMC.
Reason item 4 :
In the same way that item 1, some ACs have been made by the FAA based on
the experience and validated by experience for the justification of various
technical points by safety equivalents. Also, in a pragmatic manner, the safety
level can be provided directly using theses AC.
The use of AC 20-146 concerning seats for the crash would be suitable as AMC
for the justification of the crash (CS 23.A.562).
Reason Item 5 :
Many simplifying methods are commonly accepted as part of the design of light
aircraft for a very long time. These simplifying assumptions (on the load
calculation or justification of the parts) have demonstrated their relevance in
the context of justification of aircraft under the Annex II of the EASA.
While it does not diminish the level of security, the use of its methods,
especially when technology is known and classical, would reduce the
certification cost.
Example: The justification of a mechanical landing gear by calculation and
application of the static loads of the CS is acceptable instead of dynamic tests
insofar they are classical steel parts and with a calculation by the method of
long beams.
Reason item 6 :
No currently certified light aircraft entirely fulfils the certification code
requirements regarding the flight handling qualities. Indeed, and partly
because of the low weight of theses aircraft and of their over-powerful
motorization (for some), it is always possible to find a slight lateral or
longitudinal instability near the stall. Or, another example, aerobatic aircrafts
by definition are often unstable laterally, and "requires a particular agility"
given on their engine. These non-compliances of handling qualities as defined
Page 214 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
in the certification specification have never shown to have had a negative
influence on the level of aircraft safety.
On the other hand, it is necessary to relate the flight handling qualities of an
aircraft with its envelop of operation. Indeed, we can not require the same
qualities of a competition singleseater 300hp aircraft piloted by an elite with a
two-seater training 80hp aircraft.
Taking into account this issue pragmatically, it is possible to alleviate the
constraints for some machines while not penalising the safety level.
Commentaires sur le paragraphe 23.A.903 (AMC) / Comments on
paragraph 23.A.903 (AMC)
Proposition :
Dyn'Aéro propose que soit ajoutée une AMC 23.A.903 comme suit :
"AMC 23.A.903
For the ELA aircrafts, the engine may be type certificated under JAR-E, JAR-22
Subpart H, or FAR Part 33."
Raisons :
Cette disposition, déjà existante avec les aéronefs certifiés avec la CS VLA, a
fait ces preuves. Or les machines ELA seront très proches (masses et
puissances similaires). Par ailleurs, les couts d'homologation en CS 22, s/p H
sont nettement inferieurs à ceux en CS E.
Proposal :
Dyn'Aéro proposes to add a AMC 23.A.903 as follows:
"AMC 23.A.903
For the ELA aircrafts, the engine may be type certificated under JAR-E, JAR-22
Subpart H, or FAR Part 33."
Reasons :
This provision, already existing for aircrafts certified under CS VLA, gave its
evidence. And the ELA machines will be very close (powers and weights are
similar). In addition, the costs of approval under CS 22, s / p H are really
below those under CS E.
Commentaires sur le paragraphe 23.905 (AMC) / Comments on
paragraph 23.905 (AMC)
Proposition :
Dyn'Aéro propose que soit ajoutée une AMC 23.A.905 comme suit :
"AMC 23.A.905
For the ELA aircrafts, the propeller may be type certificated or otherwise
approved under JAR-P, JAR-22 Subpart J, or FAR Part 35."
Raisons :
Cette disposition, déjà existante avec les aéronefs certifiés avec la CS VLA, a
fait ces preuves. Or les machines ELA seront très proches (masses et
puissances similaires). Par ailleurs, les couts d'homologation en CS 22, s/p J
sont nettement inferieurs à ceux en CS P.
Page 215 of 446

Proposal :
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Dyn'Aéro proposes to add a AMC 23.A.905 as follows :
"AMC 23.A.905
For the ELA aircrafts, the propeller may be type certificated or otherwise
approved under JAR-P, JAR-22 Subpart J, or FAR Part 35."
Reasons :
This provision, already existing for aircrafts certified under CS VLA, gave its
evidence. And the ELA machines will be very close (powers and weights are
similar). In addition, the costs of approval under CS 22, s / p J are really below
those under CS P.
response Partially accepted
FAR-23 at Amendment 7:
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 2 criteria for ELA1 and ELA2.
Special conditions:
Although called special conditions by the commentator, the points raised are
more related to AMC.
Relative to points 1, 3, 4 and 5, the Agency has always the possibility to accept
alternative AMC to airworthiness codes than those published. See also reply to
comment No 74.
The issue raised in point 2 is covered by the possibility to use parts without a
Form 1 under certain conditons for ELA aircraft.
Relative to point 6, equivalent level of safety can be accepted. Deviations from
the airworthiness codes can also be accepted (using the “unless otherwise
accepted” provision of Part 21A.17) provided they still comply with the
essential requirements. Furthermore in the case of aeroplanes to be used for
aerobatic competition, restricted certificate of airworthiness based on specific
airworthiness specifications can be issued. Please refer to NPA 2008-06 for
further information.
The Agency agrees in substance with the comment but does not see therefore
the need to issue the proposed AMC to Part-21.
Engine and propellers:
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 1 relative to TC and RTC.
comment 81 comment by: PZL-Austria Handelsagentur
Proposal :
I propose to add a AMC 21A.16 A as follows:
"AMC 21A16A
Airworthiness codes for the aircrafts defined in 21A.14 (b) and (c), the FAR 23
amendment 7 (enabled the 14 th of September, 1969) is an acceptable
airworthiness code."
Reasons :
Most aircraft in service today as part of a recreational operation were
certified on the basis of the airwortiness code FAR23 Amendment 7.
The code has demonstrated its relevance and gave full satisfaction at
the level of flight safety.
The introduction possibility as possible code of this recognized code
Page 216 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
would achieve the same level of security and greatly simplify the use of
AMC for most points unsuited to light aircraft which have actually been
introduced after the FAR 23 Amendment 7.
Also I propose to add a AMC 21A.16 B as follows :
"AMC 21A16B
Special conditions for aircraft as defined in paragraphs 21A.14 (b) and (c)
1. An acceptable means of compliance developed for an airworthiness code
suitable for light aircraft by a recognized authority can be used as an
acceptable means of compliance by the applicant insofar it was
developed for aircraft like (failing to answer exactly to the definition of
the aircraft applicant).
2. The use of a non-aeronautical accessory but satisfying technical
standard which covers the airworthiness reference code requirements is
considered as an AMC.
3. A reasoning based on experience, insofar as this experiment was
conducted in a sufficiently documented framework, can be considered
as an AMC.
4. Using an AC (Advisory circular) is seen as an AMC insofar as this AC is
directly linked with paragraph to demonstrate.
5. Justifications by calculation will be acceptable to replace static or
dynamic tests insofar as the assumptions of these calculations and used
methods:
- are commonly accepted and,
- have already been validated on similar aircraft by the supplier.
6. Some non-compliances concerning the flight handling qualities as
defined in the relevant CS are acceptable if they do not jeopardize the
safety level in relation with the operating conditions of the aircraft. "
General reasons :
Much of the money savings comes from the possibility of using acceptable
means of compliance cheaper than the present ones, as well as to limit certain
actions to the elements involving real safety.
The use of AMC is mentioned in the NPA but not sufficiently precise.
Reason item 1 :
A considerable work has been done in the past in the framework of AMC
elaboration for light aircrafts to define certification reference code. This work
has led to AMC whose relevance has put already be checked as part of
certification. This work must be used. These include, for example, ACJ of the
CS VLA which are quite applicable to the relevant paragraphs of the CS 23 or
FAR 23 Amendment 7.
Reason item 2 :
Many accessories, which can be used in an aircraft, are used in various
domains proposing standards more stringent than aviation standards. Being
able to use them directly into the aircraft only by comparing the aeronautical
codes with the technical standards are time and money savings for the
manufacturer without affecting the level of safety of the aircraft.
For example, a car safety belt responding to the UTAC, standard which covers
the CS VLA or CS 23 requirements would be suitable after comparison of UTAC.
Reason item 3 :
Page 217 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
In many countries and for aircrafts under Annex II of the EASA, there exists an
obligation to follow the airworthiness of the major parts of the aircraft and with
a control by the authority. Also, the safety level of accessories is already
validated by the experience. It is therefore unnecessary to create additional
costs for certification.
Reason item 4 :
In the same way that item 1, some ACs have been made by the FAA based on
the experience and validated by experience for the justification of various
technical points by safety equivalents. Also, in a pragmatic manner, the safety
level can be provided directly using theses AC.
The use of AC 20-146 concerning seats for the crash would be suitable as AMC
for the justification of the crash (CS 23.A.562).
Reason Item 5 :
Many simplifying methods are commonly accepted as part of the design of light
aircraft for a very long time. These simplifying assumptions (on the load
calculation or justification of the parts) have demonstrated their relevance in
the context of justification of aircraft under the Annex II of the EASA.
While it does not diminish the level of security, the use of its methods,
especially when technology is known and classical, would reduce the
certification cost.
Reason item 6 :
No currently certified light aircraft entirely fulfils the certification code
requirements regarding the flight handling qualities. Indeed, and partly
because of the low weight of theses aircraft and of their over-powerful
motorization (for some), it is always possible to find a slight lateral or
longitudinal instability near the stall. Or, another example, aerobatic aircrafts
by definition are often unstable laterally, and "requires a particular agility"
given on their engine. These non-compliances of handling qualities as defined
in the certification specification have never shown to have had a negative
influence on the level of aircraft safety.
On the other hand, it is necessary to relate the flight handling qualities of an
aircraft with its envelop of operation. Indeed, we can not require the same
qualities of a competition singleseater 300hp aircraft piloted by an elite with a
two-seater training 80hp aircraft.
Taking into account this issue pragmatically, it is possible to alleviate the
constraints for some machines while not penalising the safety level.
Comments on paragraph 23.A.903 (AMC)
Proposal :
I propose to add a AMC 23.A.903 as follows:
"AMC 23.A.903
For the ELA aircrafts, the engine may be type certificated under JAR-E, JAR-22
Subpart H, or FAR Part 33."
Reasons :
This provision, already existing for aircrafts certified under CS VLA, gave its
evidence. And the ELA machines will be very close (powers and weights are
similar). In addition, the costs of approval under CS 22, s / p H are really
below those under CS E.
Comments on paragraph 23.905 (AMC)
Page 218 of 446

Proposal :
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
I propose to add a AMC 23.A.905 as follows :
"AMC 23.A.905
For the ELA aircrafts, the propeller may be type certificated or otherwise
approved under JAR-P, JAR-22 Subpart J, or FAR Part 35."
Reasons :
This provision, already existing for aircrafts certified under CS VLA, gave its
evidence. And the ELA machines will be very close (powers and weights are
similar). In addition, the costs of approval under CS 22, s / p J are really below
those under CS P.
response Partially accepted
FAR-23 at Amendment 7:
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 2 criteria for ELA1 and ELA2 Special
conditions:
Althought called special conditions by the commentator, the points raised are
more related to AMC.
Relative to points 1, 3, 4 and 5, the Agency has always the possibility to accept
alternative AMC to airworthiness codes than those published. See also reply to
comment No 74.
The issue raised in point 2 is covered by the possibility to use parts without a
Form 1 under certain conditons for ELA aircraft.
Relative to point 6, equivalent level of safety can be accepted. Deviations from
the airworthiness codes can also be accepted (using the unless otherwise
accepted provision of Part 21A.17) provided they still comply withe essential
requirements. Furthermore in the case of aeroplanes to be used for aerobatic
competition, restricted certificate of airworthiness based on specific
airworthiness specifications can be issued. Please refer to NPA 2008-06 for
further information.
The Agency agrees in substance with the comment but does not see therefore
the need to issue the proposed AMC to Part-21
Engine and propellers:
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 1 relative to TC and RTC.
comment 217 comment by: DynAero Iberica
Commentaires sur le paragraphe 21A.16A (AMC)/ Comments on paragraph
21A.16A (AMC)
Proposition :
DynAero Ibérica propose que soit ajoutée une AMC 21A.16 A comme suit :
"AMC 21A16A
Airworthiness codes for the aircrafts defined in 21A.14 (b) and (c), the FAR 23
amendment 7 (enabled the 14th of September, 1969) is an acceptable
airworthiness code."
Raisons :
• La plupart des aéronefs en service aujourd'hui dans le cadre d'une
exploitation de loisir ont été certifié sur les bases du code technique FAR23
Amendement 9.
• Ce code a démontré sa pertinence et a donné toute satisfaction au niveau de
la sécurité des vols.
• La possibilité d'introduction comme code possible de ce code reconnu
Page 219 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
permettrait d'atteindre le même niveau de sécurité et simplifierait énormément
le recours à des AMC pour la plupart des points inadapté à l'avion légère qui de
fait ont été introduit postérieurement à la FAR 23 Amendement 7.
Proposal :
DynAero Ibérica proposes to add a AMC 21A.16 A as follows:
"AMC 21A16A
Airworthiness codes for the aircrafts defined in 21A.14 (b) and (c), the FAR 23
amendment 7 (enabled the 14th of September, 1969) is an acceptable
airworthiness code."
Reasons :
• Most aircraft in service today as part of a recreational operation were
certified on the basis of the airwortiness code FAR23 Amendment 9.
• The code has demonstrated its relevance and gave full satisfaction at the
level of flight safety.
• The introduction possibility as possible code of this recognized code would
achieve the same level of security and greatly simplify the use of AMC for most
points unsuited to light aircraft which have actually been introduced after the
FAR 23 Amendment 7.
Commentaires sur le paragraphe 21A.16B (AMC) / Comments on paragraph
21A.16B (AMC)
Proposition :
DynAero Ibérica propose que soit ajoutée une AMC 21A.16 B comme suit :
"AMC 21A16B
Special conditions for the aircrafts defined in 21A.14 (b) and (c),
"AMC 21A16B
Special conditions for aircraft as defined in paragraphs 21A.14 (b) and (c)
1. An acceptable means of compliance developed for an airworthiness code
suitable for light aircraft by a recognized authority can be used as an
acceptable means of compliance by the applicant insofar it was developed for
aircraft like (failing to answer exactly to the definition of the aircraft applicant).
2. The use of a non-aeronautical accessory but satisfying technical standard
which covers the airworthiness reference code requirements is considered as
an AMC.
3. A reasoning based on experience, insofar as this experiment was conducted
in a sufficiently documented framework, can be considered as an AMC.
4. Using an AC (Advisory circular) is seen as an AMC insofar as this AC is
directly linked with paragraph to demonstrate.
5. Justifications by calculation will be acceptable to replace static or dynamic
tests insofar as the assumptions of these calculations and used methods:
- are commonly accepted and,
- have already been validated on similar aircraft by the supplier.
6. Some non-compliances concerning the flight handling qualities as defined in
the relevant CS are acceptable if they do not jeopardize the safety level in
relation with the operating conditions of the aircraft. "
Raisons générales :
Une bonne partie des économies réalisables vient de la possibilité d'utiliser des
moyens de conformités moins contraignants financièrement que les moyens
actuels, ainsi que de limiter certaines actions aux éléments engageant
réellement la sécurité.
L'utilisation des AMC est soulignée dans la NPA mais pas de manière
Page 220 of 446

suffisamment précise.
Raison point 1 :
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Un travail important a été réalisé par le passé dans le cadre de rédaction
d'AMC pour les avions légers pour la définition de code technique de référence.
Ce travail a conduit à des AMC dont la pertinence a put déjà être vérifié dans le
cadre de certification. Ce travail doit être utilisé. Il s'agit, par exemple, des ACJ
de la CS VLA qui sont tout à fait applicable aux paragraphes correspondants de
la CS 23 ou de la FAR 23 Amendement 7.
Raison point 2 :
De nombreux accessoires pouvant être utilisés dans un aéronef sont utilisés
dans des domaines proposant des normes plus contraignante que les normes
aéronautiques. Le fait de pouvoir les utiliser directement dans l'aéronef
uniquement en comparant les codes aéronautiques aux codes en vigueur pour
ses pièces est un gain de temps et d'argent pour l'avionneur sans toucher au
niveau de sécurité de l'aéronef.
Par exemple une ceinture de sécurité automobile répondant à l'UTAC, norme
couvrant les contraintes de la CS VLA ou CS 23 serait utilisable après
comparaison de l'UTAC.
Raison point 3 :
Dans de nombreux pays pour des aéronefs en annexe II de l'EASA, il existe
une obligation de suivit de navigabilité des pièces principales des aéronefs avec
un contrôle de l'autorité. Aussi, le niveau de sécurité des accessoires en
question est d'ors et déjà validé par cette expérience. Il est alors inutile
d'engendrer des coûts supplémentaires pour la certification.
Par exemple L'utilisation d'une roue sans TSo, exploitée dans le cadre de plus
de 100 aéronefs en CNSK (aéronefs en kits en France : code imposant un suivit
de navigabilité vérifié par la DGAC), serait un AMC.
Raison point 4 :
De la même manière que le point 1 des AC ont été réalisés par la FAA basé sur
l'expérience et validé par l'expérience pour la justification de différents points
techniques par des équivalents de sécurités. Aussi, de manière pragmatique, le
niveau de sécurité peut être assuré directement en utilisant ses AC .
L'utilisation de l'AC 20-146 sur les sièges pour le crash serait utilisable comme
AMC pour la justification du crash §23.A.562.
Raison point 5 :
De nombreuses méthodes simplificatrices sont couramment admises dans le
cadre de la conception des avions légers depuis très longtemps. Ces
hypothèses simplificatrices (sur le calcul des charges ou la justification des
pièces) ont démontrés leur pertinence notamment dans le cadre de la
justification d'aéronefs en annexe II de l'EASA. Tout en ne diminuant pas le
niveau de sécurité, l'utilisation de ses méthodes, en particulier lorsque la
technologie est connue et classique, permettrait de diminuer le coût de la
certification.
Exemple : La justification d'un train d'atterrissage mécanique par calcul et
application des charges statiques de la CS est acceptable en lieu et place des
essais dynamiques dans le mesure ou il s'agit de pièces classiques en acier et
Page 221 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
avec un calcul par la méthode des poutres longues.
Raison point 6 :
Aucun aéronef léger actuellement certifié ne répond totalement aux codes
techniques de certification en ce qui concerne les qualités de vol. En effet, et
en partie en raison de la faible masse de ses aéronefs et de leur sur
motorisation (pour certains), il est toujours possible de trouver une légère
instabilité latérale ou longitudinale proche du décrochage. Ou bien, autre
exemple, les aéronefs de voltige par définition sont bien souvent instable
latéralement, et « nécessite une habilité particulière » compte tenu de leur sur
motorisation. Ces non respects ponctuels des qualités de vol définies dans les
codes techniques n'ont jamais démontré avoir eut une influence négative sur le
niveau de sécurité des aéronefs.
D'autre part, il convient de mettre en relation les qualités de vol d'un aéronef
avec son domaine d'utilisation. En effet, l'on ne peut pas demander les mêmes
qualités de vol à un aéronef de compétition monoplace de 300hp piloté par une
élite avec un avion biplace école de 80hp.
En prenant en compte pragmatiquement ce point, il est possible d'alléger les
contraintes pour certaines machines tout en ne pénalisant pas le niveau de
sécurité.
Proposal :
DynAero Ibérica proposes to add a AMC 21A.16 B as follows :
"AMC 21A16B
Special conditions for aircraft as defined in paragraphs 21A.14 (b) and (c)
1. An acceptable means of compliance developed for an airworthiness code
suitable for light aircraft by a recognized authority can be used as an
acceptable means of compliance by the applicant insofar it was developed for
aircraft like (failing to answer exactly to the definition of the aircraft applicant).
2. The use of a non-aeronautical accessory but satisfying technical standard
which covers the airworthiness reference code requirements is considered as
an AMC.
3. A reasoning based on experience, insofar as this experiment was conducted
in a sufficiently documented framework, can be considered as an AMC.
4. Using an AC (Advisory circular) is seen as an AMC insofar as this AC is
directly linked with paragraph to demonstrate.
5. Justifications by calculation will be acceptable to replace static or dynamic
tests insofar as the assumptions of these calculations and used methods:
- are commonly accepted and,
- have already been validated on similar aircraft by the supplier.
6. Some non-compliances concerning the flight handling qualities as defined in
the relevant CS are acceptable if they do not jeopardize the safety level in
relation with the operating conditions of the aircraft. "
General reasons :
Much of the money savings comes from the possibility of using acceptable
means of compliance cheaper than the present ones, as well as to limit certain
actions to the elements involving real safety.
The use of AMC is mentioned in the NPA but not sufficiently precise.
Reason item 1 :
A considerable work has been done in the past in the framework of AMC
elaboration for light aircrafts to define certification reference code. This work
has led to AMC whose relevance has put already be checked as part of
certification. This work must be used. These include, for example, ACJ of the
Page 222 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
CS VLA which are quite applicable to the relevant paragraphs of the CS 23 or
FAR 23 Amendment 7.
Reason item 2 :
Many accessories, which can be used in an aircraft, are used in various
domains proposing standards more stringent than aviation standards. Being
able to use them directly into the aircraft only by comparing the aeronautical
codes with the technical standards are time and money savings for the
manufacturer without affecting the level of safety of the aircraft.
For example, a car safety belt responding to the UTAC, standard which covers
the CS VLA or CS 23 requirements would be suitable after comparison of UTAC.
Reason item 3 :
In many countries and for aircrafts under Annex II of the EASA, there exists an
obligation to follow the airworthiness of the major parts of the aircraft and with
a control by the authority. Also, the safety level of accessories is already
validated by the experience. It is therefore unnecessary to create additional
costs for certification.
For example the use of a wheel without TSo, operated on more than 100 CNSK
aircraft (aircraft kits in France: code imposing an airworthiness following
checked by the DGAC), would be a AMC.
Reason item 4 :
In the same way that item 1, some ACs have been made by the FAA based on
the experience and validated by experience for the justification of various
technical points by safety equivalents. Also, in a pragmatic manner, the safety
level can be provided directly using theses AC.
The use of AC 20-146 concerning seats for the crash would be suitable as AMC
for the justification of the crash (CS 23.A.562).
Reason Item 5 :
Many simplifying methods are commonly accepted as part of the design of light
aircraft for a very long time. These simplifying assumptions (on the load
calculation or justification of the parts) have demonstrated their relevance in
the context of justification of aircraft under the Annex II of the EASA.
While it does not diminish the level of security, the use of its methods,
especially when technology is known and classical, would reduce the
certification cost.
Example: The justification of a mechanical landing gear by calculation and
application of the static loads of the CS is acceptable instead of dynamic tests
insofar they are classical steel parts and with a calculation by the method of
long beams.
Reason item 6 :
No currently certified light aircraft entirely fulfils the certification code
requirements regarding the flight handling qualities. Indeed, and partly
because of the low weight of theses aircraft and of their over-powerful
motorization (for some), it is always possible to find a slight lateral or
longitudinal instability near the stall. Or, another example, aerobatic aircrafts
by definition are often unstable laterally, and "requires a particular agility"
given on their engine. These non-compliances of handling qualities as defined
in the certification specification have never shown to have had a negative
influence on the level of aircraft safety.
On the other hand, it is necessary to relate the flight handling qualities of an
aircraft with its envelop of operation. Indeed, we can not require the same
qualities of a competition singleseater 300hp aircraft piloted by an elite with a
two-seater training 80hp aircraft.
Taking into account this issue pragmatically, it is possible to alleviate the
constraints for some machines while not penalising the safety level.
Commentaires sur le paragraphe 23.A.903 (AMC) / Comments on paragraph
Page 223 of 446

23.A.903 (AMC)
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Proposition :
DynAero Ibérica propose que soit ajoutée une AMC 23.A.903 comme suit :
"AMC 23.A.903
For the ELA aircrafts, the engine may be type certificated under JAR-E, JAR-22
Subpart H, or FAR Part 33."
Raisons :
Cette disposition, déjà existante avec les aéronefs certifiés avec la CS VLA, a
fait ces preuves. Or les machines ELA seront très proches (masses et
puissances similaires). Par ailleurs, les couts d'homologation en CS 22, s/p H
sont nettement inferieurs à ceux en CS E.
Proposal :
DynAero Ibérica proposes to add a AMC 23.A.903 as follows:
"AMC 23.A.903
For the ELA aircrafts, the engine may be type certificated under JAR-E, JAR-22
Subpart H, or FAR Part 33."
Reasons :
This provision, already existing for aircrafts certified under CS VLA, gave its
evidence. And the ELA machines will be very close (powers and weights are
similar). In addition, the costs of approval under CS 22, s / p H are really
below those under CS E.
Commentaires sur le paragraphe 23.905 (AMC) / Comments on paragraph
23.905 (AMC)
Proposition :
DynAero Ibérica propose que soit ajoutée une AMC 23.A.905 comme suit :
"AMC 23.A.905
For the ELA aircrafts, the propeller may be type certificated or otherwise
approved under JAR-P, JAR-22 Subpart J, or FAR Part 35."
Raisons :
Cette disposition, déjà existante avec les aéronefs certifiés avec la CS VLA, a
fait ces preuves. Or les machines ELA seront très proches (masses et
puissances similaires). Par ailleurs, les couts d'homologation en CS 22, s/p J
sont nettement inferieurs à ceux en CS P.
Proposal :
DynAero Ibérica proposes to add a AMC 23.A.905 as follows :
"AMC 23.A.905
For the ELA aircrafts, the propeller may be type certificated or otherwise
approved under JAR-P, JAR-22 Subpart J, or FAR Part 35."
Reasons :
This provision, already existing for aircrafts certified under CS VLA, gave its
evidence. And the ELA machines will be very close (powers and weights are
similar). In addition, the costs of approval under CS 22, s / p J are really below
those under CS P.
response Partially accepted
Page 224 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
FAR-23 at Amendment 7:
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 2 criteria for ELA1 and ELA2 Special
conditions:
Although called special conditions by the commentator, the points raised are
more related to AMC.
Relative to points 1, 3, 4 and 5, the Agency has always the possibility to accept
alternative AMC to airworthiness codes than those published. See also reply to
comment No 74.
The issue raised in point 2 is covered by the possibility to use parts without a
Form 1 under certain conditons for ELA aircraft.
Relative to point 6, equivalent level of safety can be accepted. Deviations from
the airworthiness codes can also be accepted (using the ‘unless otherwise
accepted’ provision of Part 21A.17) provided they still comply with the
essential requirements. Furthermore in the case of aeroplanes to be used for
aerobatic competition, restricted certificate of airworthiness based on specific
airworthiness specifications can be issued. Please refer to NPA 2008-06 for
further information.
The Agency agrees in substance with the comment but does not see therefore
the need to issue the proposed AMC to Part-21.
Engine and propellers:
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 1 relative to TC and RTC.
comment 284 comment by: Drive & Fly Luftfahrt GmbH
Comments on paragraph 21A.16A (AMC)
Proposal :
Drive And Fly proposes to add a AMC 21A.16 A as follows:
"AMC 21A16A
Airworthiness codes for the aircrafts defined in 21A.14 (b) and (c), the FAR 23
amendment 7 (enabled the 14 th of September, 1969) is an acceptable
airworthiness code."
Reasons :
Most aircraft in service today as part of a recreational operation were
certified on the basis of the airwortiness code FAR23 Amendment 9.
The code has demonstrated its relevance and gave full satisfaction at
the level of flight safety.
The introduction possibility as possible code of this recognized code
would achieve the same level of security and greatly simplify the use of
AMC for most points unsuited to light aircraft which have actually been
introduced after the FAR 23 Amendment 7.
response Not accepted
FAR-23 at Amendment 7:
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 2 criteria for ELA1 and ELA2.
A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Fees and charges
p. 12
Page 225 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 43 comment by: John Tempest
response Noted
It would seem imperitive for QEs to be able to directly levy fees to enable
sufficient income to sustain the business. Further, it would seem
imperitive that the fees payable to EASA or the Competent Authority (CA) by
the QE be limited to a basic annual approval fee, which should be of the same
order as that required for a TC holder for one aircraft type, to cover annual
audit requirements, plus a very nominal (vanishingly small) charge per
certificate.
For the QE to be financially viable, they must recover their costs while at the
same time, minimising costs to the applicant.
In view of the fact that EASA and the CA(s) will delegate considerable
responsibility to the QE, and will presumably issue certificates without futher
showing, it would be unreasonable for EASA and CA(s) to levy large approval
fees on the QE.
All legal approvals remain issued by the Agency under its fees and charges
system. This fees and charges system is considered by stakeholders as being a
major hindrance to certification of new aircraft or to certification of changes or
repairs to existing aircraft. The fees and charges regulation is adopted by the
Commission. The applicant pays the fees to EASA. The contracts between EASA
and NAA or qualified entities when they are allocated tasks by EASA contain
the financial arrangements between EASA and NAA or QE. Modifying this
framework necessitates an in-depth further study.
comment 68 comment by: Michael GREINER
response Noted
NOTE:
This comment was made against this section of the NPA. This comment and
the response are however only reflected once at page 6 of this CRD in order to
improve readability.
comment 93 comment by: René Fournier
The level of the fees and charges levied by the Agency or the National
Authorities is critical to the dynamism of recreational aviation. They should not
reach a level that would risk hampering the competitiveness of the whole
sector.
In the case of old aircraft existing in small numbers and no longer in
production, it should be borne in mind that continued support of the TC is a
non profit activity. If the Agency intends to limit the number of orphan aircraft,
it should reduce rather than increase the level of fees perceived on these
activities, bearing in mind that some are subject to hourly rate.
In particular, it should be emphasised that the level of the fees that would be
requested for the production of parts applicable under a letter of agreement or
a POA is too high to reasonably envisage sharing it between a limited number
of aircraft owners. With respect to the continued support of TCs, such activity
is only possible thanks to the provision foreseen for aircraft of which less than
50 examples are registered worldwide.
Page 226 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
All legal approvals remain issued by the Agency under its fees and charges
system. This fees and charges system is considered by stakeholders as being a
major hindrance to certification of new aircraft or to certification of changes or
repairs to existing aircraft. The fees and charges regulation is adopted by the
Commission. The applicant pays the fees to EASA. The contracts between EASA
and NAA or qualified entities when they are allocated tasks by EASA contain
the financial arrangements between EASA and NAA or QE. Modifying this
framework necessitates an in-depth further study.
comment 136 comment by: Fridrich Jan
response Noted
Stávající výše poplatků EASA je nepřiměřená pro lehké a sportovní letectví a
ve svém důsledku povede k jeho likvidaci.
Navrhuji: přejít na systém který je s úspěchem používán v USA - tedy malou
platbou z každé letenky. Takový systém zajistí bezproblémové financování aniž
by došlo k znatelnému nárůstu cen letenek z tohoto důvodu.
All legal approvals remain issued by the Agency under its fees and charges
system. This fees and charges system is considered by stakeholders as being a
major hindrance to certification of new aircraft or to certification of changes or
repairs to existing aircraft. The fees and charges regulation is adopted by the
Commission. The applicant pays the fees to EASA. The contracts between EASA
and NAA or qualified entities when they are allocated tasks by EASA contain
the financial arrangements between EASA and NAA or QE. Modifying this
framework necessitates an in-depth further study.
comment 153 comment by: Light Aircraft Association of the Czech Republic
response Noted
LAA ČR strongly thinks that if EASA fees and charges will stay as they are it
will ruin small companies who are now active in light sport aviation.
Proposal - use the financing based on small fee from airtickets - the same as is
used in the USA. Such system will assure financing of EASA system without
significant increase of airticket price.
All legal approvals remain issued by the Agency under its fees and charges
system. This fees and charges system is considered by stakeholders as being a
major hindrance to certification of new aircraft or to certification of changes or
repairs to existing aircraft. The fees and charges regulation is adopted by the
Commission. The applicant pays the fees to EASA. The contracts between EASA
and NAA or qualified entities when they are allocated tasks by EASA contain
the financial arrangements between EASA and NAA or QE. Modifying this
framework necessitates an in-depth further study.
In its opinion, the Agency will draw the attention of the Commission on the
proposal made by the commentator
comment 414 comment by: CAA CZ
According to our opinion, there is a need for further study of this issue
specified in the NPA and we would like to support the preparation of this study
or to achieve an amendment of the system of fees and charges. We consider
Page 227 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
this issue as very important. This issue has direct impact on the area of small
aircraft manufacturers and procedures for obtaining approvals. An effort to
save costs by organisations in order to pay the lower fee than currently
requested would affect the procedures followed and would have, in the end, an
impact on safety. We have no specific proposal on the possible value of fee
under the new concept. However, our interpretation generally is that for the
combined DOA/POA approval the fee value will be about the same as for both
approvals applications submitted individually, due to the number of personnel
and number of hours concerned. Therefore, we do not find this concept
administratively and economically simple. In addition, we would like to support
further evaluation of the fees and charges system.
All legal approvals remain issued by the Agency under its fees and charges
system. This fees and charges system is considered by stakeholders as being a
major hindrance to certification of new aircraft or to certification of changes or
repairs to existing aircraft. The fees and charges regulation is adopted by the
Commission. The applicant pays the fees to EASA. The contracts between EASA
and NAA or qualified entities when they are allocated tasks by EASA contain
the financial arrangements between EASA and NAA or QE. Modifying this
framework necessitates an in-depth further study.
comment 415 comment by: JIHLAVAN airplanes s.r.o.
response Noted
JIHLAVAN airplanes, s.r.o. strongly thinks that if EASA fees and charges will
stay as they are it will ruin small companies who are now active in light sport
aviation.
All legal approvals remain issued by the Agency under its fees and charges
system. This fees and charges system is considered by stakeholders as being a
major hindrance to certification of new aircraft or to certification of changes or
repairs to existing aircraft. The fees and charges regulation is adopted by the
Commission. The applicant pays the fees to EASA. The contracts between EASA
and NAA or qualified entities when they are allocated tasks by EASA contain
the financial arrangements between EASA and NAA or QE. Modifying this
framework necessitates an in-depth further study.
comment 436 comment by: Light Aircraft Association UK
This will be one of the main areas of contention. The proposals state that to
the applicant, the charge will the same wherever in Europe the applicant is
based; however, the scale of charges is in Euros and the value of a Euro is not
the same across Europe. The value of €500 will be different in the UK (for
example) due to exchange rate differences with the Pound, and different in
parts of Europe due to different costs of living and salaries. Furthermore, the
Qualified Entity must negotiate a separate contract with EASA for the
undertaking of work: the costs associated with providing the service to the
applicant will be different in different parts of Europe. Overheads will be
higher in some countries compared with others. Given that the full scope of
the whole ELA package is not yet determined, it is currently impossible to put
together a business case to calculate the viability of becoming a Qualified
Entity (or indeed a manufacturer). On the other hand, allowing Qualified
Entities to charge applicants market rates directly for work might result in the
QE cutting corners in a bid to charge lower rates and hence attract business.
Page 228 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
This might also have the effect of an applicant applying to a QE that is not the
nearest (assuming the applicant doesn't apply directly to EASA): this goes
against the stated intention of ‘increased proximity' of the approving body to
the applicant.
There is no indication as to the costs that will be levied by EASA for setting up
a QE and the continued oversight.
All legal approvals remain issued by the Agency under its fees and charges
system. This fees and charges system is considered by stakeholders as being a
major hindrance to certification of new aircraft or to certification of changes or
repairs to existing aircraft. The fees and charges regulation is adopted by the
Commission. The applicant pays the fees to EASA. The contracts between EASA
and NAA or qualified entities when they are allocated tasks by EASA contain
the financial arrangements between EASA and NAA or QE. Modifying this
framework necessitates an in-depth further study.
comment 439 comment by: P&M Aviation
response Noted
The costs of so much per aircraft type approved is prohibitive as it will make
older aircraft less attractive to manufacturers to continue to support. What
happens when a manufacturer stops supporting an older aircraft?
All legal approvals remain issued by the Agency under its fees and charges
system. This fees and charges system is considered by stakeholders as being a
major hindrance to certification of new aircraft or to certification of changes or
repairs to existing aircraft. The fees and charges regulation is adopted by the
Commission. The applicant pays the fees to EASA. The contracts between EASA
and NAA or qualified entities when they are allocated tasks by EASA contain
the financial arrangements between EASA and NAA or QE. Modifying this
framework necessitates an in-depth further study.
comment 450 comment by: Rybar Jirka
response Noted
Stávající výše poplatků EASA je likvidační pro lehké a sportovní letectví, proto
navrhuji:
Vzhledem k rozsahu činnosti AESA je nutné vybírat poplatek od konkrétních
cestujících, jejichž bezpečnost EASA především chrání a na něž se při
navrhovaných změnách EASA odvolává - je rozhodně spravedlivější vybírat
nepatrnou částku několika € od miliónů cestujících, než statisíce € od stovek
subjektů. To podle mého názoru zajistí dostatečné prostředky pro činnost EASA
a nezpůsobí to likvidaci určitých oblastí všeobecného letectví.
All legal approvals remain issued by the Agency under its fees and charges
system. This fees and charges system is considered by stakeholders as being a
major hindrance to certification of new aircraft or to certification of changes or
repairs to existing aircraft. The fees and charges regulation is adopted by the
Commission. The applicant pays the fees to EASA. The contracts between EASA
and NAA or qualified entities when they are allocated tasks by EASA contain
the financial arrangements between EASA and NAA or QE. Modifying this
Page 229 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
framework necessitates an in-depth further study.
comment 626 comment by: European Sailplane Manufacturers
response Noted
The European sailplane manufacturers still do not consider the fees & charges
levied by EASA as fair or feasible.
1. The fees are in the end all based on the assumption that one work hour
at EASA is worth 225 Euro. This is simply not justified in a so called
industry where hourly rates are at least lower by a factor of three!
2. The fees for certifiacion of products have to be paid annually as long as
the certification takes. Thereby EASA is not really inclined to work
faster! Experience has shown that the EASA system makes time for
certification longer.
3. Certification of engines and propellers is disproportionate high when
compared to the fees for a ne aircraft.
4. The fees listed here are correct but it is not mentioned that the
application for and the upholding of organisation approvals cost
additional money. It is also these fees which make the business case for
small manufacturers quite difficult.
All legal approvals remain issued by the Agency under its fees and charges
system. This fees and charges system is considered by stakeholders as being a
major hindrance to certification of new aircraft or to certification of changes or
repairs to existing aircraft. The fees and charges regulation is adopted by the
Commission. The applicant pays the fees to EASA. The contracts between EASA
and NAA or qualified entities when they are allocated tasks by EASA contain
the financial arrangements between EASA and NAA or QE. Modifying this
framework necessitates an in-depth further study.
comment 680 comment by: Deutscher Aero Club e.V. (DAeC)
response Noted
The Deutscher Aero Club e.V. welcomes the envisaged alleviations to the
certification process in order to revitalise the light aviation market. However
unless the fees & charges regulation is revised as well the result will not be
lasting.
All legal approvals remain issued by the Agency under its fees and charges
system. This fees and charges system is considered by stakeholders as being a
major hindrance to certification of new aircraft or to certification of changes or
repairs to existing aircraft. The fees and charges regulation is adopted by the
Commission. The applicant pays the fees to EASA. The contracts between EASA
and NAA or qualified entities when they are allocated tasks by EASA contain
the financial arrangements between EASA and NAA or QE. Modifying this
framework necessitates an in-depth further study.
comment 688 comment by: Evektor
EVEKTOR position: current level of fees and charges isn't acceptable for noncommertial
operation. 6000€ per year of on-going certification has no
ekvivalent round the world and therefore current fees and charges has the
discrimination function and don't contribute to competetiveness of european
producer.
Page 230 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Fees and charges must reflect price of product and above all must corespond
to certification prices of others key countries outside to EU.
All legal approvals remain issued by the Agency under its fees and charges
system. This fees and charges system is considered by stakeholders as being a
major hindrance to certification of new aircraft or to certification of changes or
repairs to existing aircraft. The fees and charges regulation is adopted by the
Commission. The applicant pays the fees to EASA. The contracts between EASA
and NAA or qualified entities when they are allocated tasks by EASA contain
the financial arrangements between EASA and NAA or QE. Modifying this
framework necessitates an in-depth further study.
comment 711 comment by: Europe Air Sports, VP
response Noted
EAS strongly thinks that if EASA fees and charges will stay as they are it
will have a strong negative impact on small companies who are now active in
light sport aviation.
Proposal
- use the financing based on small fee from airtickets - the same as is used in
the USA. Such system will assure financing of EASA systém without significant
increase of airticket price.
All legal approvals remain issued by the Agency under its fees and charges
system. This fees and charges system is considered by stakeholders as being a
major hindrance to certification of new aircraft or to certification of changes or
repairs to existing aircraft. The fees and charges regulation is adopted by the
Commission. The applicant pays the fees to EASA. The contracts between EASA
and NAA or qualified entities when they are allocated tasks by EASA contain
the financial arrangements between EASA and NAA or QE. Modifying this
framework necessitate an in-depth further study.
In its opinion, the Agency will draw the attention of the Commission on the
proposal made by the commentator.
A. Explanatory Note - V. Regulatory Impact Assessment - 1. Purpose and
intended effect
p. 12-13
comment 269 comment by: Gorden WIEGELS
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
for the the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
mean.
Regarding Initial Airworthiness the proposal is to use a similar mechanism like
done in USA when introducing the LSA category. There a limited timeframe
Page 231 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
was available, where each aircraft owner had the possibility by simple
paperwork to get his/her aircraft certified as “experimental” LSA with certain
operational limitations to the new category. There was no new checking of
compliance or such, the individual aircraft was accepted on the basis of its
existing operational experience. For most aircraft owners this is fully sufficient.
Secondly, it is proposed to also offer for factory produced Annex II aircraft
already in service to enhance the scope of usability by showing compliance on
the basis of the certification code the aircraft is already certified to, and
upgrading it through the manufacturing company to the ELA category, without
operational limitations. An example would be that an Ultralight, currently
certified under LTF-UL (Germany), or Section S (UK) or ?!? (Czech) to become
an LSA aircraft, still following LTF-UL certification code, but with enhanced
takeoff mass.
If the manufacturer of an aircraft originally classified in Annex II wishes to
increase the Maximum Take-Off Mass of this aircraft beyond the limit of Annex
II, it will have to comply with the requirements applicable to ELA.
comment 376 comment by: O. Reinhardt / Flightdesign
response Noted
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
for the the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
mean.
Regarding Initial Airworthiness the proposal is to use a similar mechanism like
done in USA when introducing the LSA category. There a limited timeframe
was available, where each aircraft owner had the possibility by simple
paperwork to get his/her aircraft certified as “experimental” LSA with certain
operational limitations to the new category. There was no new checking of
compliance or such, the individual aircraft was accepted on the basis of its
existing operational experience. For most aircraft owners this is fully sufficient.
Secondly, it is proposed to also offer for factory produced Annex II aircraft
already in service to enhance the scope of usability by showing compliance on
the basis of the certification code the aircraft is already certified to, and
upgrading it through the manufacturing company to the ELA category, without
operational limitations. An example would be that an Ultralight, currently
certified under LTF-UL (Germany), or Section S (UK) or UL-2 (Czech) or other
equivalent codes become an LSA aircraft, still following original certification
code, but with enhanced takeoff mass.
If the manufacturer of an aircraft originally classified in Annex II wishes to
increase the Maximum Take-Off Mass of this aircraft beyond the limit of Annex
II, it will have to comply with the requirements applicable to ELA.
Page 232 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 396 comment by: Thomas Wendt
response Noted
Page 12 - A. Explanatory Note - V. Regulatory Impact Assessment - 1.
Purpose and intended effect
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
for the the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
mean.
Regarding Initial Airworthiness the proposal is to use a similar mechanism like
done in USA when introducing the LSA category. There a limited timeframe
was available, where each aircraft owner had the possibility by simple
paperwork to get his/her aircraft certified as "experimental" LSA with certain
operational limitations to the new category. There was no new checking of
compliance or such, the individual aircraft was accepted on the basis of its
existing operational experience. For most aircraft owners this is fully sufficient.
Secondly, it is proposed to also offer for factory produced Annex II aircraft
already in service to enhance the scope of usability by showing compliance on
the basis of the certification code the aircraft is already certified to, and
upgrading it through the manufacturing company to the ELA category, without
operational limitations. An example would be that an Ultralight, currently
certified under LTF-UL (Germany), or Section S (UK) or ?!? (Czech) to become
an LSA aircraft, still following LTF-UL certification code, but with enhanced
takeoff mass.
If the manufacturer of an aircraft originally classified in Annex II wishes to
increase the Maximum Take-Off Mass of this aircraft beyond the limit of Annex
II, it will have to comply with the requirements applicable to ELA.
comment 428 comment by: Flight Design GmbH Matthias Betsch CEO
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
for the the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
mean.
Regarding Initial Airworthiness the proposal is to use a similar mechanism like
done in USA when introducing the LSA category. There a limited timeframe
Page 233 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
was available, where each aircraft owner had the possibility by simple
paperwork to get his/her aircraft certified as "experimental" LSA with certain
operational limitations to the new category. There was no new checking of
compliance or such, the individual aircraft was accepted on the basis of its
existing operational experience. For most aircraft owners this is fully sufficient.
Secondly, it is proposed to also offer for factory produced Annex II aircraft
already in service to enhance the scope of usability by showing compliance on
the basis of the certification code the aircraft is already certified to, and
upgrading it through the manufacturing company to the ELA category, without
operational limitations. An example would be that an Ultralight, currently
certified under LTF-UL (Germany), or Section S (UK) or UL-2 (Czech) or other
equivalent codes become an LSA aircraft, still following original certification
code, but with enhanced takeoff mass.
If the manufacturer of an aircraft originally classified in Annex II wishes to
increase the Maximum Take-Off Mass of this aircraft beyond the limit of Annex
II, it will have to comply with the requirements applicable to ELA.
comment 480 comment by: Tegelbeckers
response Noted
Page 12 - A. Explanatory Note - V. Regulatory Impact Assessment - 1. Purpose
and intended effect
There is no text in the database.
comment 653 comment by: Martin Josef Warken
response Accepted
Comment 20
Page 5/6 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Overview of the proposals included in this NPA
Page 6 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - ELA 1
Page 7 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - ELA 2
Page 26/27 B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart B - 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph".
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that - probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter -
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in ...". The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Thank you for your comment.
Page 234 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
NPA is the reference. Presentations have now been corrected.
comment 747 comment by: Oliver
response Noted
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
for the the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
mean.
Regarding Initial Airworthiness the proposal is to use a similar mechanism like
done in USA when introducing the LSA category. There a limited timeframe
was available, where each aircraft owner had the possibility by simple
paperwork to get his/her aircraft certified as "experimental" LSA with certain
operational limitations to the new category. There was no new checking of
compliance or such, the individual aircraft was accepted on the basis of its
existing operational experience. For most aircraft owners this is fully sufficient.
Secondly, it is proposed to also offer for factory produced Annex II aircraft
already in service to enhance the scope of usability by showing compliance on
the basis of the certification code the aircraft is already certified to, and
upgrading it through the manufacturing company to the ELA category, without
operational limitations. An example would be that an Ultralight, currently
certified under LTF-UL (Germany), or Section S (UK) or ?!? (Czech) to become
an LSA aircraft, still following LTF-UL certification code, but with enhanced
takeoff mass.
If the manufacturer of an aircraft originally classified in Annex II wishes to
increase the Maximum Take-Off Mass of this aircraft beyond the limit of Annex
II, it will have to comply with the requirements applicable to ELA.
comment 775 comment by: Air Marugan
Comment 21
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
for the the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
mean.
Regarding Initial Airworthiness the proposal is to use a similar mechanism like
Page 235 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
done in USA when introducing the LSA category. There a limited timeframe
was available, where each aircraft owner had the possibility by simple
paperwork to get his/her aircraft certified as "experimental" LSA with certain
operational limitations to the new category. There was no new checking of
compliance or such, the individual aircraft was accepted on the basis of its
existing operational experience. For most aircraft owners this is fully sufficient.
Secondly, it is proposed to also offer for factory produced Annex II aircraft
already in service to enhance the scope of usability by showing compliance on
the basis of the certification code the aircraft is already certified to, and
upgrading it through the manufacturing company to the ELA category, without
operational limitations. An example would be that an Ultralight, currently
certified under LTF-UL (Germany), or Section S (UK) or UL-2 (Czech) or other
equivalent codes become an LSA aircraft, still following original certification
code, but with enhanced takeoff mass.
If the manufacturer of an aircraft originally classified in Annex II wishes to
increase the Maximum Take-Off Mass of this aircraft beyond the limit of Annex
II, it will have to comply with the requirements applicable to ELA.
A. Explanatory Note - V. Regulatory Impact Assessment - 3. Sectors
concerned
comment 440 comment by: P&M Aviation
response Noted
p. 13
The list of sectors concerned does not currently include European
Manufacturers of Microlight Aircraft, surely the ELA1 or CS-LSA categories also
apply to them or are Annex II aircraft definitely staying as they are, or is there
some future proposal for these?
Most of the European manufacturers who export LSA aircraft to the USA also
supply a slightly cut down version for the lighter European Microlight category
each operating and manufactured under its own National rules is this still going
to be the case?
Such manufacturers would only be affected if they produce ELA aircraft: for
that reason they have not been listed as affected.
A. Explanatory Note - V. Regulatory Impact Assessment - 4. Impacts p. 13-16
comment 32 comment by: FAA
As identified in these two paragraphs, the ELA concept for the issuance of Type
Certificates (TC) and Standard Certificates of Airworthiness (C of A) is broader
in scope than the FAA rule that does not provide for TC or C of A. This
difference in scope, if it remains unchanged, will require additional coordination
between EASA and the FAA on acceptance of these types of aircraft for
import/export between the two authorities. It is recommended that EASA and
the FAA begin coordination of import/export and validation issues for ELA and
LSA aircraft as soon as possible. This coordination may involve changes to
working agreements or bilateral agreements.
Page 236 of 446

esponse Accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 10 relative to harmonisation.
comment 68 comment by: Michael GREINER
response Noted
NOTE:
This comment was made against this section of the NPA. This comment and
the response are however only reflected once at page 6 of this CRD in order to
improve readability.
comment 269 comment by: Gorden WIEGELS
response Noted
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
for the the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
mean.
Regarding Initial Airworthiness the proposal is to use a similar mechanism like
done in USA when introducing the LSA category. There a limited timeframe
was available, where each aircraft owner had the possibility by simple
paperwork to get his/her aircraft certified as “experimental” LSA with certain
operational limitations to the new category. There was no new checking of
compliance or such, the individual aircraft was accepted on the basis of its
existing operational experience. For most aircraft owners this is fully sufficient.
Secondly, it is proposed to also offer for factory produced Annex II aircraft
already in service to enhance the scope of usability by showing compliance on
the basis of the certification code the aircraft is already certified to, and
upgrading it through the manufacturing company to the ELA category, without
operational limitations. An example would be that an Ultralight, currently
certified under LTF-UL (Germany), or Section S (UK) or ?!? (Czech) to become
an LSA aircraft, still following LTF-UL certification code, but with enhanced
takeoff mass.
If the manufacturer of an aircraft originally classified in Annex II wishes to
increase the Maximum Take-Off Mass of this aircraft beyond the limit of Annex
II, it will have to comply with the requirements applicable to ELA.
comment 282 comment by: Klaus Erger
Comment 21
Page 4 - A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of the draft
decision - Introduction
Page 237 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Page 12 - A. Explanatory Note - V. Regulatory Impact Assessment - 1. Purpose
and intended effect
Page 14 - A. Explanatory Note - V. Regulatory Impact Assessment - 4. Impacts
(Economics)
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
for the the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
mean.
Regarding Initial Airworthiness the proposal is to use a similar mechanism like
done in USA when introducing the LSA category. There a limited timeframe
was available, where each aircraft owner had the possibility by simple
paperwork to get his/her aircraft certified as "experimental" LSA with certain
operational limitations to the new category. There was no new checking of
compliance or such, the individual aircraft was accepted on the basis of its
existing operational experience. For most aircraft owners this is fully sufficient.
Secondly, it is proposed to also offer for factory produced Annex II aircraft
already in service to enhance the scope of usability by showing compliance on
the basis of the certification code the aircraft is already certified to, and
upgrading it through the manufacturing company to the ELA category, without
operational limitations. An example would be that an Ultralight, currently
certified under LTF-UL (Germany), or Section S (UK) or ?!? (Czech) to become
an LSA aircraft, still following LTF-UL certification code, but with enhanced
takeoff mass.
If the manufacturer of an aircraft originally classified in Annex II wishes to
increase the Maximum Take-Off Mass of this aircraft beyond the limit of Annex
II, it will have to comply with the requirements applicable to ELA.
comment 307 comment by: Karg
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
for the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
mean.
Regarding Initial Airworthiness the proposal is to use a similar mechanism like
done in USA when introducing the LSA category. There a limited timeframe
was available, where each aircraft owner had the possibility by simple
paperwork to get his/her aircraft certified as "experimental" LSA with certain
operational limitations to the new category. There was no new checking of
Page 238 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
compliance or such, the individual aircraft was accepted on the basis of its
existing operational experience. For most aircraft owners this is fully sufficient.
Secondly, it is proposed to also offer for factory produced Annex II aircraft
already in service to enhance the scope of usability by showing compliance on
the basis of the certification code the aircraft is already certified to, and
upgrading it through the manufacturing company to the ELA category, without
operational limitations. An example would be that an Ultralight, currently
certified under LTF-UL (Germany), or Section S (UK) or (Czech), could become
an LSA aircraft still following LTF-UL certification code, but with enhanced
takeoff mass.
If the manufacturer of an aircraft originally classified in Annex II wishes to
increase the Maximum Take-Off Mass of this aircraft beyond the limit of Annex
II, it will have to comply with the requirements applicable to ELA.
comment 330 comment by: TECNAM
response Noted
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
for the the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
mean.
Regarding Initial Airworthiness the proposal is to use a similar mechanism like
done in USA when introducing the LSA category. There a limited timeframe
was available, where each aircraft owner had the possibility by simple
paperwork to get his/her aircraft certified as “experimental” LSA with certain
operational limitations to the new category. There was no new checking of
compliance or such, the individual aircraft was accepted on the basis of its
existing operational experience. For most aircraft owners this is fully sufficient.
Secondly, it is proposed to also offer for factory produced Annex II aircraft
already in service to enhance the scope of usability by showing compliance on
the basis of the certification code the aircraft is already certified to, and
upgrading it through the manufacturing company to the ELA category, without
operational limitations. An example would be that an Ultralight, currently
certified under LTF-UL (Germany), or Section S (UK) or UL-2 (Czech) or other
equivalent codes become an LSA aircraft, still following original certification
code, but with enhanced takeoff mass.
If the manufacturer of an aircraft originally classified in Annex II wishes to
increase the Maximum Take-Off Mass of this aircraft beyond the limit of Annex
II, it will have to comply with the requirements applicable to ELA.
comment 345 comment by: Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Switzerland
Page 239 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Impact on safety:
The NPA states on § V. 4. that on the available evidences, the heavier
regulation of the regulated sector does not appear to have resulted in any
safety benefit.
Comments:
The incomplete review of accident shown in appendix I involved 17 fatalities
(entered in the file with all FOCA comments attached to the title page). This
shall not be considered as negligible. From the information available, it can be
derived that most of those acci-dents may have been avoided and are unlikely
to occur in the regulated sector. The objective of the ELA process shall be to
avoid the deficiencies identified in the microlight processes.
The safety concerns are known, the need to proceed with caution is agreed;
however, we believe that what we are proposing preservation of the safety
level.
Indeed we keep the need for identified design standards (CS), compliance will
be found by EASA. As a minimum, the capability for design will be evaluated by
approving the certification programme by EASA. These findings and evaluation
will be based on technical visas issued either by accredited NAA or QE that
comply with the criteria laid down in Annex V to Regulation 216/2008.
comment 376 comment by: O. Reinhardt / Flightdesign
response Noted
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
for the the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
mean.
Regarding Initial Airworthiness the proposal is to use a similar mechanism like
done in USA when introducing the LSA category. There a limited timeframe
was available, where each aircraft owner had the possibility by simple
paperwork to get his/her aircraft certified as “experimental” LSA with certain
operational limitations to the new category. There was no new checking of
compliance or such, the individual aircraft was accepted on the basis of its
existing operational experience. For most aircraft owners this is fully sufficient.
Secondly, it is proposed to also offer for factory produced Annex II aircraft
already in service to enhance the scope of usability by showing compliance on
the basis of the certification code the aircraft is already certified to, and
upgrading it through the manufacturing company to the ELA category, without
operational limitations. An example would be that an Ultralight, currently
certified under LTF-UL (Germany), or Section S (UK) or UL-2 (Czech) or other
equivalent codes become an LSA aircraft, still following original certification
code, but with enhanced takeoff mass.
Page 240 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
If the manufacturer of an aircraft originally classified in Annex II wishes to
increase the Maximum Take-Off Mass of this aircraft beyond the limit of Annex
II, it will have to comply with the requirements applicable to ELA.
comment 397 comment by: Thomas Wendt
response Noted
Page 14 - A. Explanatory Note - V. Regulatory Impact Assessment - 4.
Impacts (Economics)
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
for the the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
mean.
Regarding Initial Airworthiness the proposal is to use a similar mechanism like
done in USA when introducing the LSA category. There a limited timeframe
was available, where each aircraft owner had the possibility by simple
paperwork to get his/her aircraft certified as "experimental" LSA with certain
operational limitations to the new category. There was no new checking of
compliance or such, the individual aircraft was accepted on the basis of its
existing operational experience. For most aircraft owners this is fully sufficient.
Secondly, it is proposed to also offer for factory produced Annex II aircraft
already in service to enhance the scope of usability by showing compliance on
the basis of the certification code the aircraft is already certified to, and
upgrading it through the manufacturing company to the ELA category, without
operational limitations. An example would be that an Ultralight, currently
certified under LTF-UL (Germany), or Section S (UK) or ?!? (Czech) to become
an LSA aircraft, still following LTF-UL certification code, but with enhanced
takeoff mass.
If the manufacturer of an aircraft originally classified in Annex II wishes to
increase the Maximum Take-Off Mass of this aircraft beyond the limit of Annex
II, it will have to comply with the requirements applicable to ELA.
comment 398 comment by: Flight Design GmbH Matthias Betsch CEO
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
for the the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
mean.
Page 241 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Regarding Initial Airworthiness the proposal is to use a similar mechanism like
done in USA when introducing the LSA category. There a limited timeframe
was available, where each aircraft owner had the possibility by simple
paperwork to get his/her aircraft certified as "experimental" LSA with certain
operational limitations to the new category. There was no new checking of
compliance or such, the individual aircraft was accepted on the basis of its
existing operational experience. For most aircraft owners this is fully sufficient.
Secondly, it is proposed to also offer for factory produced Annex II aircraft
already in service to enhance the scope of usability by showing compliance on
the basis of the certification code the aircraft is already certified to, and
upgrading it through the manufacturing company to the ELA category, without
operational limitations. An example would be that an Ultralight, currently
certified under LTF-UL (Germany), or Section S (UK) or UL-2 (Czech) or other
equivalent codes become an LSA aircraft, still following original certification
code, but with enhanced takeoff mass.
If the manufacturer of an aircraft originally classified in Annex II wishes to
increase the Maximum Take-Off Mass of this aircraft beyond the limit of Annex
II, it will have to comply with the requirements applicable to ELA.
comment 464 comment by: www.fascination-pilots.de
response Noted
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
for the the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
mean.
Regarding Initial Airworthiness the proposal is to use a similar mechanism like
done in USA when introducing the LSA category. There a limited timeframe
was available, where each aircraft owner had the possibility by simple
paperwork to get his/her aircraft certified as “experimental” LSA with certain
operational limitations to the new category. There was no new checking of
compliance or such, the individual aircraft was accepted on the basis of its
existing operational experience. For most aircraft owners this is fully sufficient.
Secondly, it is proposed to also offer for factory produced Annex II aircraft
already in service to enhance the scope of usability by showing compliance on
the basis of the certification code the aircraft is already certified to, and
upgrading it through the manufacturing company to the ELA category, without
operational limitations. An example would be that an Ultralight, currently
certified under LTF-UL (Germany), or Section S (UK) or ?!? (Czech) to become
an LSA aircraft, still following LTF-UL certification code, but with enhanced
takeoff mass.
Page 242 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
If the manufacturer of an aircraft originally classified in Annex II wishes to
increase the Maximum Take-Off Mass of this aircraft beyond the limit of Annex
II, it will have to comply with the requirements applicable to ELA.
comment 481 comment by: Tegelbeckers
response Noted
Page 14 - A. Explanatory Note - V. Regulatory Impact Assessment - 4. Impacts
(Economics)
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
for the the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
mean.
Regarding Initial Airworthiness the proposal is to use a similar mechanism like
done in USA when introducing the LSA category. There a limited timeframe
was available, where each aircraft owner had the possibility by simple
paperwork to get his/her aircraft certified as "experimental" LSA with certain
operational limitations to the new category. There was no new checking of
compliance or such, the individual aircraft was accepted on the basis of its
existing operational experience. For most aircraft owners this is fully sufficient.
Secondly, it is proposed to also offer for factory produced Annex II aircraft
already in service to enhance the scope of usability by showing compliance on
the basis of the certification code the aircraft is already certified to, and
upgrading it through the manufacturing company to the ELA category, without
operational limitations. An example would be that an Ultralight, currently
certified under LTF-UL (Germany), or Section S (UK) or ?!? (Czech) to become
an LSA aircraft, still following LTF-UL certification code, but with enhanced
takeoff mass.
If the manufacturer of an aircraft originally classified in Annex II wishes to
increase the Maximum Take-Off Mass of this aircraft beyond the limit of Annex
II, it will have to comply with the requirements applicable to ELA.
comment 498 comment by: light-wings Oliver Liedmann
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
for the the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
mean.
Regarding Initial Airworthiness the proposal is to use a similar mechanism like
done in USA when introducing the LSA category. There a limited timeframe
Page 243 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
was available, where each aircraft owner had the possibility by simple
paperwork to get his/her aircraft certified as "experimental" LSA with certain
operational limitations to the new category. There was no new checking of
compliance or such, the individual aircraft was accepted on the basis of its
existing operational experience. For most aircraft owners this is fully sufficient.
Secondly, it is proposed to also offer for factory produced Annex II aircraft
already in service to enhance the scope of usability by showing compliance on
the basis of the certification code the aircraft is already certified to, and
upgrading it through the manufacturing company to the ELA category, without
operational limitations. An example would be that an Ultralight, currently
certified under LTF-UL (Germany), or Section S (UK) or ?!? (Czech) to become
an LSA aircraft, still following LTF-UL certification code, but with enhanced
takeoff mass.
If the manufacturer of an aircraft originally classified in Annex II wishes to
increase the Maximum Take-Off Mass of this aircraft beyond the limit of Annex
II, it will have to comply with the requirements applicable to ELA.
comment 499 comment by: light-wings Oliver Liedmann
response Noted
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
for the the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
mean.
If the manufacturer of an aircraft originally classified in Annex II wishes to
increase the Maximum Take-Off Mass of this aircraft beyond the limit of Annex
II, it will have to comply with the requirements applicable to ELA.
comment 547 comment by: UK CAA
Subject/Topic
Level of safety
NPA
Section/Page
Comment
Part A - Section V, This section of the NPA/Opinion argues that design
4, "Impacts"(a) standards and the regulation of the design process can be
(i) Safety
relaxed (or in some cases removed) without a significant
negative impact on safety. It is stated that a "qualitative
comparison of safety records" indicates that the heavier
regulation of the regulated sector compared with the
unregulated sector "does not appear to have resulted in any
safety benefit". This conclusion has not been justified by any
firm evidence presented in the NPA. Whilst reliable accident
data is difficult to obtain for general aviation, some
Page 244 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
information is available:
In 2006 a review was carried out in the UK by a group
comprising GA representatives and CAA-UK staff. This was
published as
"The Regulatory Review of General Aviation In the United
Kingdom".
It is available via the CAA website at:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/RegReview.pdf
The report presents a statistical analysis (with 95%
confidence level) for the UK GA fleet for a period of 10
years. It gives the following comparison of Fatal Accident
Rates per 100,000 hours -
Full-Regulation - 1.4
Devolved Regulation - 2.3
Self-Regulation - 2.6
The report also compares the fatal accident rates for
microlights in the UK and another EU member state. (The
latter microlights are subject to a scheme of self-declaration
of compliance, whereas UK microlights are Type Approved
through compliance with requirements derived from JAR 22
and VLA, and are designed and manufactured by
organisations holding a simplified, combined DOA/POA).
The Fatal Accident Rate quoted for microlights in the EU
member state is 10.75 per 100,000 hours. The equivalent
rate for UK microlights is 4 per 100,000 hours.
The report also provides data from the Australian Transport
Safety Board comparing their unregulated microlights with
the regulated light aircraft fleet. The fatal accident rates
are:
Light Aeroplanes (regulated) - 1.0 per 100,000 hours
Microlights (unregulated) - 5.1 per 100,000 hours.
Thus there is statistical evidence of a correlation between
level of regulation and fatal accident rate.
It is true that the proportion of these accidents that are
attributed to failures of design is low, but it may be argued
that this is evidence that the existing design standards are
effective in preventing fatal accidents and so should not be
relaxed. Also, there have been cases in the past where a
series of accidents that originally were attributed to pilot
error, were later realised to be due to hazardous
characteristics of the aircraft arising from deficiencies in the
design.
The conclusion that must be drawn from the published data
is that there is a need to be cautious in reducing the level of
regulation of design and manufacture. Otherwise, reduced
regulation may result in a higher fatal accident rate. The
text of the opinion should be revised to reflect this.
It is suggested that the text of the current paragraph "4.a.i
- Safety" should be replaced by the following:
Page 245 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
"It is difficult to predict the effect on safety of reducing the
level of regulation of airworthiness. This is because there
are no European-wide statistics available; mainly due to the
lack of common standards for reporting. Some published
data (comparing fleets that are subject to different levels of
regulation) does indicate that the fatal accident rate should
be expected to increase if the level of regulation is reduced.
It is noted that most reported accidents are not attributed to
failings of design, but it cannot be determined whether this
means that the design requirements are unnecessarily
stringent, or that they have been very effective and so are
essential to preventing an increase in the fatal accident rate.
This indicates the need for caution and to preserve at least
the principles of the current system, namely: that
organisations must hold approvals for the activities that
they undertake, the design standards for a product must be
defined, and compliance with those requirements assured.
Option 1.......etc "
The safety concerns are known, the need to proceed with caution is agreed;
however, we believe that what we are proposing preservation of the safety
level.
Indeed we keep the need for identified design standards (CS), compliance will
be found by EASA. As a minimum, the capability for design will be evaluated by
approving the certification programme by EASA. These findings and evaluation
will be based on technical visas issued either by accredited NAA or QE that
comply with the criteria laid down in Annex V to Regulation 216/2008.
comment 548 comment by: UK CAA
Part A - Section V,
4, "Impacts" (a)
(i) Safety
The Agency points out that effective rulemaking for light
aircraft is made difficult by the scarcity of objective accident
data. There is the opportunity now to address the
availability of objective statistical data for the future by
introducing requirements for the effective reporting of
accidents and incidents for light aircraft, including ELA,
possibly as part of this Opinion. Also, it would accord with
the principles of good regulatory practice to ensure that
accident data is gathered so that the effects of the
implementation of this NPA can be analysed and the need
for future amendments assessed.
Question for the Agency
Does the Agency intend to include ELA as a specific item in
its annual reviews of aviation safety, so that any significant
change in fatal accident rates can be identified and
addressed?
It is suggested that the Opinion should include a
commitment to introduce a compulsory reporting system for
recreational aviation so that the future trends in fatal
Page 246 of 446

esponse Accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
accidents can be monitored.
The Agency wishes to point out that the obligation to report is already included
in Part M (paragraph MA.202). The obligation to analyse occurences is included
in Part 21 for TC holders. Therefore, the Agency believes that there is no need
to include a compulsory reporting system for recreational aviation in the
Opinion.
The annual safety review includes already data for aircraft below 2 250 kg. The
Agency intends to further develop this review to cover ELA and monitor the
trends.
comment 550 comment by: UK CAA
Section A, V, 4 Under Section A, V, 4 "Impacts", "Safety", it is claimed that
"Impacts", "Safety" the...
"safety levels intended are consistent with the expectations
of the stakeholders who understand that recreational
aviation is riskier than commercial aviation".
response Partially accepted
If the aircraft are to be allowed to be used for commercial
purposes this argument is not valid and should be removed
from the opinion.
(It is already proposed separately that this text be
replaced).
The remit of MDM.032 is "Regulation of aircraft, other than
complex motor powered aircraft, used in non-commercial
activities"; and the proposals of this NPA have been derived
from the assertion that "the stakeholders who understand
that recreational aviation is riskier than commercial
aviation". It follows that the ELA 1 and ELA 2 aircraft should
be prohibited from commercial operation.
It is noted that the US LSA system prohibits commercial
use except for pilot training and glider towing. It can be
deduced that the reason for allowing flying training is that
this contributes to safety of operation, and that the reason
for allowing glider towing is that gliding is a recreational
activity.
It is recommended that the Opinion applies the same
restrictions on commercial operations to all ELA aircraft as
the US applies to LSA.
The inconsistencies pointed out by the commentator are accepted. The Agency
took the opportunity of this comment to review thoroughly the need to put the
limitations described in the comment.
The Agency find that there is a significant difference between ELA and the FAA
LSA system: the FAA does not evaluate the design of LSA, their system being
basically self-declaration. On the contrary, the Agency applies classical principles
to ELA: a TC/ RTC is issued, compliance with well identified standards is found
and the capability of the designer is assessed (the minimum is the approval of
the certification programme).
Page 247 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
In addition, following comments received, the proposal relative to part that do
not need a Form 1 has been revised and is now less ambitious. One of the
objections to the system included in the NPA was the possibility that aircraft
move from non-commercial to commercial.
Finally the scope of ELA is different from LSA. In the case of ELA 2 aircraft, the
only change introduced was the move from DOA to AP-DOA.
Based on the above, the Agency believes that there is no need to introduce the
same limitation as in LSA.
comment 560 comment by: UK CAA
response Noted
Subject/Topic Environmental Impact and Standards
NPA
Section/Page
Comment
Part A - Section V, As noted in the paragraph (iii) "Environmental", the intent
4, Impacts (a) (iii) of the NPA is to introduce a system that will stimulate
Environmental; increased production and operation of aircraft. Assuming
Page 15
that this proposal is successful in that respect, then, even
with improved technology, the net environmental effect
should be expected to be negative.
Question
The NPA does not appear to address environmental
certification - specifically, Noise and Emissions. What are
the Agency's intentions in these respects?
The environmental issues in general are covered by the NPA 2008-15. Concerns
as expressed by the commentator will be addressed in that context.
comment 655 comment by: Martin Josef Warken
response Accepted
Comment 20
Page 5/6 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Overview of the proposals included in this NPA
Page 6 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - ELA 1
Page 7 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - ELA 2
Page 26/27 B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart B - 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph".
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that - probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter -
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in ...". The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Page 248 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
The NPA is correct and the Agency apologises for the mistake in the
presentation.
comment 662 comment by: DGAC France
response Accepted
1a. COMMENT TO :
ü Explanatory Note
1b. AFFECTED PARAGRAPH :
RIA V. 4.vi
2. COMMENT:
Ce paragraphe mentionne la possibilité de valider des LSA étrangers en vue de
leur importation, mais selon un mécanisme différent des procédures habituelles
telles que les EASA-FAA TVP. La DGAC France souhaite connaître le plus tôt
possible quelles seront ces procédures de validation et recommande d'inscrire
ce sujet au programme de travail de l'AESA.
Courtesy translation:
This paragraph mentions the opportunity for the validation and import of
foreign LSA, but according to procedures different from those usually used in
validation, such as EASA FAA TVP. DGAC France is interested to know as soon
as possible the validation procedures for ELA certification in foreign countries
such as USA. DGAC recommends adding this subject in the EASA working
programme.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 10 relative to harmonisation.
comment 721 comment by: procomposite
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
for the the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
mean.
Regarding Initial Airworthiness the proposal is to use a similar mechanism like
done in USA when introducing the LSA category. There a limited timeframe
was available, where each aircraft owner had the possibility by simple
paperwork to get his/her aircraft certified as "experimental" LSA with certain
operational limitations to the new category. There was no new checking of
compliance or such, the individual aircraft was accepted on the basis of its
existing operational experience. For most aircraft owners this is fully sufficient.
Secondly, it is proposed to also offer for factory produced Annex II aircraft
already in service to enhance the scope of usability by showing compliance on
the basis of the certification code the aircraft is already certified to, and
upgrading it through the manufacturing company to the ELA category, without
operational limitations. An example would be that an Ultralight, currently
Page 249 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
certified under LTF-UL (Germany), or Section S (UK) or UL-2 (Czech) or other
equivalent codes become an LSA aircraft, still following original certification
code, but with enhanced takeoff mass.
If the manufacturer of an aircraft originally classified in Annex II wishes to
increase the Maximum Take-Off Mass of this aircraft beyond the limit of Annex
II, it will have to comply with the requirements applicable to ELA.
comment 748 comment by: Oliver
response Noted
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
for the the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
mean.
Regarding Initial Airworthiness the proposal is to use a similar mechanism like
done in USA when introducing the LSA category. There a limited timeframe
was available, where each aircraft owner had the possibility by simple
paperwork to get his/her aircraft certified as "experimental" LSA with certain
operational limitations to the new category. There was no new checking of
compliance or such, the individual aircraft was accepted on the basis of its
existing operational experience. For most aircraft owners this is fully sufficient.
Secondly, it is proposed to also offer for factory produced Annex II aircraft
already in service to enhance the scope of usability by showing compliance on
the basis of the certification code the aircraft is already certified to, and
upgrading it through the manufacturing company to the ELA category, without
operational limitations. An example would be that an Ultralight, currently
certified under LTF-UL (Germany), or Section S (UK) or ?!? (Czech) to become
an LSA aircraft, still following LTF-UL certification code, but with enhanced
takeoff mass.
If the manufacturer of an aircraft originally classified in Annex II wishes to
increase the Maximum Take-Off Mass of this aircraft beyond the limit of Annex
II, it will have to comply with the requirements applicable to ELA.
comment 776 comment by: Air Marugan
Comment 21
4. Impacts (Economics)
As is widely known, current high performance aircraft within Annex II are on
the limits of the definitions under Annex. As is also commonly known, there are
a huge number of active pilots and new aircraft under Annex II.
For the success of ELA it is mandatory, that there is a sensible and easy (in
Page 250 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
sense of effort, time and cost) way to upgrade existing aircraft of Annex II to
be used under ELA concept. This applies to both, initial airworthiness and
licensing. Licensing will be commented separately in answer to the licensing
NPA. Excluding these pilots / owners from the new category will be overcritical
for the the success of the new system and cannot be justified with any safety
mean.
Regarding Initial Airworthiness the proposal is to use a similar mechanism like
done in USA when introducing the LSA category. There a limited timeframe
was available, where each aircraft owner had the possibility by simple
paperwork to get his/her aircraft certified as "experimental" LSA with certain
operational limitations to the new category. There was no new checking of
compliance or such, the individual aircraft was accepted on the basis of its
existing operational experience. For most aircraft owners this is fully sufficient.
Secondly, it is proposed to also offer for factory produced Annex II aircraft
already in service to enhance the scope of usability by showing compliance on
the basis of the certification code the aircraft is already certified to, and
upgrading it through the manufacturing company to the ELA category, without
operational limitations. An example would be that an Ultralight, currently
certified under LTF-UL (Germany), or Section S (UK) or UL-2 (Czech) or other
equivalent codes become an LSA aircraft, still following original certification
code, but with enhanced takeoff mass.
If the manufacturer of an aircraft originally classified in Annex II wishes to
increase the Maximum Take-Off Mass of this aircraft beyond the limit of Annex
II, it will have to comply with the requirements applicable to ELA.
A. Explanatory Note - V. Regulatory Impact Assessment - 5. Summary and
Final Assessment
comment 223 comment by: Aero-Club of Switzerland
response Noted
The Aero-Club of Switzerland also favours Option 2.
The Agency thanks the commentator for their support.
comment 563 comment by: UK CAA
p. 16
Subject/Topic Equity and Fairness Issues
NPA
Section/Page
Comment
Part A - Section V, The intended changes to Part 21 Subparts K, L and M
4, Impacts (b) appear to be proposing that various release, maintenance
and repair privileges are granted without requiring
Page 16
compliance with Part M, 145 and/or 66, as is currently
required for other holders of these privileges. This may be
unfair to the holders of Part M and 145 approvals and to
the holders of Part 66 licences. To avoid this further
comments suggest that the appropriate requirements are
imposed.
Page 251 of 446

esponse Not accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
The Opinion should address the potential "equity and
fairness" implications of the proposed ELA process on the
holders of existing approvals.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 5 relative to combined POA/DOA.
A. EXPLANATORY NOTE - Attachment 1 - Background p. 17-19
comment 17 comment by: John DAVIES
response Noted
Question 3 Using MTOM as a limiting value for the initial airworthiness of hot
air balloons is difficult as many of the major components (e.g. burners and gas
cylinders) can be interchanged between the smallest and the largest
envelope. Without complex record keeping and placard systems it will be
impossible to track discrete components. ELA 1 and 2 will create similar
problems in the maintnenance world.
This material was provided for background information purposes. MTOM is not
used anymore for balloons and airship in ELA.
comment 27 comment by: FFVV
response Noted
On behalf of FFVV - comments
Classification of airplanes based on weight limit can be understood in regard of
stucture and energy in relation with airplanes performances, however, "heavy"
sailplanes(up to 850kg) are always non complex airplanes compared with other
aircrafts. This should be taken in account for intitial airworhiness requirement,
and of course for continuous airworthiness.
This material was provided for background information purposes. The ELA1
criteria has now been extended to cover such sailplanes.
comment 186 comment by: Ingmar Hedblom
Is is stated that the Agency continues to support the introduction of
Assessment bodies... and that this could be the subject of a future NPA.
Is is assumed that an assessment body is the same as the qualified entity now
introduced in the basic regulation and in NPA 2008-07.
response Not accepted
An assessment body can issue a legally valid certificate or approval when a
qualified entity can only perform technical tasks.
comment 355 comment by: British Gliding Association
Question 3 on options for initial certification
The BGA prefers Option 3 Industry monitoring with self declaration. We
further believe that the provisions for one man DOA and DER's need revisiting
Page 252 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
with a view to liberalising them for ELA class Sport aircraft.
This option has not been retained in this NPA and in the corresponding Opinion.
It may be considered in the task BR.010 intended to start mid 2010 and that
should:
1. Propose the necessary modifications to the Basic Regulation and to
EASA Implementing Rules to achieve an adapted level of regulation for
ELA1 for airworthiness, maintenance, operations and licensing.
2. Harmonise the above with other authorities.
3. Improve the approach to orphan aircraft.
4. Review the essential requirements for airworthiness to avoid any
unwanted effects on small aircraft.
5. Propose that a Type Certificate for engine and propellers is not needed
for some ELA aircraft.
6. Ensure that self-sustained powered sailplanes equipped with a turbojet
are non-complex aircraft.
comment 556 comment by: UK CAA
Part A -
Attachment 1,
Background,
Attachment 2,
Attachment 3
Pages 18,19,20
and 23
Establishment and notification of the TC basis
In the ELA 1, "Who does what" table in Attachment 2, it is
not clear which single legal entity is responsible for
managing the compilation and agreement of the
Certification Basis.
It is stated that:
the certification basis is "established" by the DOA;
Special Conditions are consulted on by EASA;
the response to the consultation (CRD) is provided
by the NAA/QE;
the CRD is published by EASA;
the certification basis is agreed by the NAA/QE - "in
view of approval of certification plan"
the certification plan is agreed by EASA.
This implies that the task of defining the precise Type
Certification basis is to be passed around between at least
three different bodies. Who will be responsible for the
management of the complete task?
In particular, it is not understood what is meant by "in view
of approval of certification plan". What does this actually
mean?
According to Article 20 of Regulation 216/2008 the Agency
must establish and notify the Type Certification Basis; -
which is what is clearly shown in the table for ELA 2. Why is
ELA1 not simply the same as ELA 2 in this respect?
Proposal
ELA 1 introduces additional complexity and lack of clarity
for little benefit, particularly when the issues that arise
from not having a DOA/APDOA (above) are considered. It is
Page 253 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
suggested that the ELA 1 process should be the same as for
ELA2; (or ELA2 should be re-named ELA, and ELA1
deleted).
comment 616 comment by: Peter VON BURG
response Noted
The agency claims to envisage a solution close to Option 3 for aircrafts below
1000 kg but the proposed solution does not fullfill this promise.
The main difference, the introduction of the concept of self-certification for
aircrafts below 750 kg, has been removed.
This option has not been retained in this NPA and in the corresponding Opinion.
It may be considered in the task BR.010 intended to start mid 2010 and that
should:
1. Propose the necessary modifications to the Basic Regulation and to
EASA Implementing Rules to achieve an adapted level of regulation for
ELA1 for airworthiness, maintenance, operations and licensing.
2. Harmonise the above with other authorities.
3. Improve the approach to orphan aircraft.
4. Review the essential requirements for airworthiness to avoid any
unwanted effects on small aircraft.
5. Propose that a Type Certificate for engine and propellers is not needed
for some ELA aircraft.
6. Ensure that self-sustained powered sailplanes equipped with a turbojet
are non-complex aircraft.
comment 691 comment by: Evektor
EVEKTOR position:
...aircraft with a Maximum Take-Off Mass below 750 kg....
3 bullet- Body issuing TC: if the design capability is checked by an
Assesment Body issuing the TC could be assured by Assesment Body.
11 bullet- ...issuing AD- Assesment Body could be better option, Assesment
Body should have more safety information.
response Not accepted
The NPA and the corresponding Opinion do not envisage the introduction of
assessment bodies.
Page 254 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
A. EXPLANATORY NOTE - Attachment 2 - Who does what - Initial and
Continued Airworthiness - ELA 1
p. 20-22
comment 68 comment by: Michael GREINER
response Noted
NOTE:
This comment was made against this section of the NPA. This comment and
the response are however only reflected once at page 6 of this CRD in order to
improve readability.
comment 73 comment by: PC-Aero
Attachent 2, ELA1 , Initial and Continuous Airworthiness.
Propose to change approval of certification plan by QE not EASA. An EASA
approval will increase certification costs. At least 3 specialists ( flight,
structure, systems ) will be involved. This will be not less then 20 hours of
work for EASA, finaly costing about 5000 EUR. For small manufacturer ( LSA
case) this is not less. QE has the competence to approve the certification plan.
In any case is not acceptable EASA to approve the certification plan for the LSA
subclass.
response Not accepted
The approval of the certification plan by EASA is consistent with EASA
responsibilities. It ensures standardisation and equal treatment between
projects.
comment 111 comment by: Ultraleicht-Flugverein Saar-Pfalz e.V.
response Noted
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high,
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As a fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, than could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries, where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II), it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Page 255 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Proposal 1:
QE may be used by EASA to do technical tasks in relation with DOA approval
and by NAA to do technical tasks in relation with POA.
QE dealing with design will be accredited by EASA, so consistency should be
achieved. QE dealing with production will be accredited by NAA. However, the
way these accreditations are done will be checked by EASA through the
production standardisation work.
Proposal 2: A pan-European QE dealing with design issues will be approved by
EASA. The same QE dealing also with production can only be approved by
EASA if the affected Member States agree to it.
However, the policy to use QE has not been yet adopted by the EASA
Management Board.
comment 112 comment by: Ultraleicht-Flugverein Saar-Pfalz e.V.
Negative. The proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, which we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart J. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, as long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart J, but limited to products coming within ELA 1, when deviating from
the relevant paragraphs for the design assurance system (21A.239) on the
basis of a valid approval following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self
declaration, but valid positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO
9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The approval will be accepted without further
auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
The minimum requirement for capability for design is the approval of the
certification plan. Therefore no DOA is mandatory. However a DOA is
necessary to obtain privileges.
Self declartion has not been accepted in this NPA and in the corresponding
opinion.
comment 113 comment by: Ultraleicht-Flugverein Saar-Pfalz e.V.
No approvals, related to a TC for CS-LSA. After issueing a "special
airworthiness certificate (SAC)" for initial airworthiness, all requirements have
strictly to be reduced to the analogue requirements within the framework of
FAA-LSA. If this is not respected, CS-LSA will never be animated. Instead, we
will have an equivalent to the already existing VLA category, nobody wants and
nobody needs.
Validation of third country TC has to be supplemented by validation of third
country Special Airworthiness Certificate (SAC) according to FAA-LSA.
Page 256 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
In accordance with the Basic Regulation, an aircraft must obtain a type
certificate or a restricted type certificate. The task BR.010 will study other
possibilities but they will require a change to the Basic Regulation.
comment 171 comment by: Alexander Eich
response Noted
Comments 1 and 2 apply here as well - link same comment to this position.
See reply to comment No 166.
comment 210 comment by: Walter Gessky
Attachment 2
Comments to Attachment 2:
1) For ELA 1 no DO must be available. Instead of DOA the word
applicant should be used.
2) Certification: Proposal for selecting QE or NAA:
Change the text:
Proposal for Allocation of task, selecting QE or NAA:
The intent is to allow the Design Organisation to select a proposed to EASA a
QE or NAA from a list of NAA/QE approved by EASA.
Comment:
This has to be changed, because allocation of task by EASA according
the allocation procedures. Contract between EASA and NAA/QE, EU
outsourcing regulations has to be taken into consideration.
Standardized NAA`s are still available and ready to do the task.
In all other places where only QE are mentioned NAA`s has to be added.
NAA`s could be involved in the competition with QE.
3) Certification: Approval of certification plan:
Change text:
Purpose is demonstration of capability for the designer: this activity will also
define involvement of EASA/QE or NAA. Involvement reduced in case the
designer has opted for DOA.
4) Editorial, All references to Article 15 of Regulation 1592/2003 should
be changed to Art 20 of regulation 216/2008
5) Validation of third country TC
Proposal for selecting QE or NAA
Certification: Proposal for selecting QE or NAA:
Change the text:
Proposal for Allocation of task, selecting NAA:
The intent is to allow the Design Organisation to select a proposed to EASA a
QE or NAA from a list of NAA/QE approved by EASA.
Comment:
This has to be changed, because allocation of task by EASA according the
allocation procedures. Contract between EASA and NAA/QE, EU outsourcing
Page 257 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
regulations has to be taken into consideration. Standardized NAA`s are still
available and ready to do the task.
In addition, third country TC holder might not have a design organization. Use
applicant instead of design organization. Third country NAA have to be
involved based on the bilateral agreements. This is not reflected in the list.
Validation tasks should be only allocated to NAA`s.
•6) Approval of minor changes and repairs based on a CS:
It should be noted that minor changes and repairs based on a CS does not
require a separate approval
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 235 comment by: Flight Design GmbH Matthias Betsch CEO
negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Proposal 1: QE´s shall also be appointed for the Auditing work to obtain DOA
and POA that allows design and production work under ELA 1. This is fully in
line with basic regulation 216/2008 Chapter II Section I Article 20 2(a).
In addition to this, it must be ensured that a common level is achieved for
applicants throughout all the EASA member states. This is mostly the issue
from side of the QE´s, when they are approved and supervised by the
Authority solely. Involvement of the NAA´s because of varying capabilities in
practice shows that this is not the case and this will lead to different safety
levels and unfair competition . This problem can be overcome by a Pan
European QE. It is not the task of the EASA, or this NPA and comments, to
initiate such a Pan European QE, but the effect and usage, when it comes to
existence, must be defined.
Proposal 2: Pan-European QE´s by their pan European nature must be
appointed by the Agency. In case the applicant selects the Pan- European QE,
combined DOA/POA applications will be automatically dealt with by the Agency,
and not through CA´s or NAA´s.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 242 comment by: Ronald MEYER
Comment 3
Page 22 A. EXPLANATORY NOTE - Attachment 2 - Who does what -
Initial and Continued Airworthiness - ELA 1 - Organisational Approval
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high,
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
Page 258 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As a fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, than could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries, where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II), it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Proposal 1:
QE may be used by EASA to do technical tasks in relation with DOA approval
and by NAA to do technical tasks in relation with POA.
QE dealing with design will be accredited by EASA, so consistency should be
achieved. QE dealing with production will be accredited by NAA. However, the
way these accreditations are done will be checked by EASA through the
production standardisation work.
Proposal 2: A pan-European QE dealing with design issues will be approved by
EASA. The same QE dealing also with production can only be approved by
EASA if the affected Member States agree to it.
However, the policy to use QE has not been yet adopted by the EASA
Management Board.
comment 255 comment by: Gorden WIEGELS
negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Proposal 1: QE´s shall also be appointed for the Auditing work to obtain DOA
and POA that allows design and production work under ELA 1. This is fully in
line with basic regulation 216/2008 Chapter II Section I Article 20 2(a).
In addition to this, it must be ensured that a common level is achieved for
applicants throughout all the EASA member states. This is mostly the issue
from side of the QE´s, when they are approved and supervised by the
Authority solely. Involvement of the NAA´s because of varying capabilities in
practice shows that this is not the case and this will lead to different safety
levels and unfair competition . This problem can be overcome by a Pan
European QE. It is not the task of the EASA, or this NPA and comments, to
initiate such a Pan European QE, but the effect and usage, when it comes to
existence, must be defined.
Proposal 2: Pan-European QE´s by their pan European nature must be
appointed by the Agency. In case the applicant selects the Pan- European QE,
combined DOA/POA applications will be automatically dealt with by the Agency,
and not through CA´s or NAA´s.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
Page 259 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 256 comment by: Gorden WIEGELS
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 261 comment by: Gorden WIEGELS
Accreditation of Design Organizations must be under Agency, not NAA, already
now.
response Not accepted
DOA are issued by the Agency.Concerning POA, please see reply to comment
No 235.
comment 276 comment by: Klaus Erger
Comment 7
Page 22 A. EXPLANATORY NOTE - Attachment 2 - Who does what - Initial and
Continued Airworthiness - ELA 1 - Organisational Approval
Comments 1 and 2 apply here as well - link same comment to this position.
Comment 8
Page 22 A. EXPLANATORY NOTE - Attachment 2 - Who does what - Initial and
Continued Airworthiness - ELA 1 - Accredition and Surveillance
Accreditation of Design Organizations must be under Agency, not NAA, already
now.
Comments to POA also have effect on last line here.
response Not accepted
DOA are issued by the Agency. Concerning POA, please see reply to comment
No 235.
Page 260 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 293 comment by: Karg
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Proposal 1: QE´s shall also be appointed for the Auditing work to obtain DOA
and POA that allows design and production work under ELA 1. This is fully in
line with basic regulation 216/2008 Chapter II Section I Article 20 2(a).
In addition to this, it must be ensured that a common level is achieved for
applicants throughout all the EASA member states. This is mostly the issue
from side of the QE´s, when they are approved and supervised by the
Authority solely. Involvement of the NAA´s because of varying capabilities in
practice shows that this is not the case and this will lead to different safety
levels and unfair competition. This problem can be overcome by a Pan
European QE. It is not the task of the EASA, or this NPA and comments, to
initiate such a Pan European QE, but the effect and usage, when it comes to
existence, must be defined.
Proposal 2: Pan-European QE´s by their pan European nature must be
appointed by the Agency. In case the applicant selects the Pan- European QE,
combined DOA/POA applications will be automatically dealt with by the Agency,
and not through CA´s or NAA´s.
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights -
mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world - in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are already flying (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II), it is proven that deregulation in general is not reason for
less safety, much more it can even improve safety.
response Partially accepted
Proposal 1:
QE may be used by EASA to do technical tasks in relation with DOA approval
and by NAA to do technical tasks in relation with POA.
QE dealing with design will be accredited by EASA, so consistency should be
achieved. QE dealing with production will be accredited by NAA. However, the
way these accreditations are done will be checked by EASA through the
production standardisation work.
Proposal 2: A pan-European QE dealing with design issues will be approved by
EASA. The same QE dealing also with production can only be approved by
Page 261 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
EASA if the affected Member States agree to it.
However, the policy to use QE has not been yet adopted by the EASA
Management Board.
comment 294 comment by: Karg
Accreditation of Design Organizations must be under Agency, not NAA, already
now.
Comments to POA also have effect on last line here.
response Not accepted
DOA are issued by the Agency. Concerning POA, please see reply to comment
No 235.
comment 315 comment by: TECNAM
response Noted
Comments 1 and 2 apply here as well – link same comment to this position.
Please see reply to comment No 308.
comment 316 comment by: TECNAM
Accreditation of Design Organizations must be under Agency, not NAA, already
now.
Comments to POA also have effect on last line here.
response Not accepted
DOA are issued by the Agency. Concerning POA, please see reply to comment
235.
comment 328 comment by: Ronald MEYER
response Noted
Issue of a "special airworthiness certificate (SAC)" according to FAA-LSA
procedure instead of a type certification (TC) for CS-LSA. The certification
procedure as described in Attachment 2 must not be applied for issueing a
"special airworthiness certificate (SAC)". The issue of SAC has strictly to be
reduced to the procedure described under
Comment 14: Creation of a Certification Specification - Light Sport
Aeroplane (CS-LSA)
identically to the FAA-LSA procedure. If this is not respected, CS-LSA will never
be animated. Instead, we will have an equivalent to the already existing VLA
category, nobody wants and nobody needs.
See reply to comment No 308.
comment 332 comment by: Ronald MEYER
No approvals, related to a TC for CS-LSA. After issueing a "special
Page 262 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
airworthiness certificate (SAC)" for initial airworthiness, all requirements have
strictly to be reduced to the analogue requirements within the framework of
FAA-LSA. If this is not respected, CS-LSA will never be animated. Instead, we
will have an equivalent to the already existing VLA category, nobody wants and
nobody needs.
Validation of third country TC has to be supplemented by validation of third
country Special Airworthiness Certificate (SAC) according to FAA-LSA.
The Basic Regulation requires that aircraft obtain a type certificate or a
restricted type certificate. The task BR.010 will explore other possibilities but
they will require a modification of the Basic Regulation.
comment 349 comment by: Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Switzerland
response Noted
AFM:
Our experience with validation of already "certified" UL has shown that the
completeness and accu-racy of AFM/AFMS/AMMs and their continuous update
is not satisfactory. This has also to do with the rather dynamic environment of
the UL industry and the large variety of models being offered which poses quite
a challenge from the configuration control standpoint. It is therefore
recommended to properly address the issue of an effective "Issue of
information or instructions" process and the asso-ciated responsibilities.
Moreover, it is suggested to consider the preparation of AMC/GM concerning
the classification of AFM/AFMS changes.
The current rules relative to the issue of an aircraft manual does apply as ELA
aircraft will receive a type certificate or a restricted type certificate.
comment 361 comment by: O. Reinhardt / Flightdesign
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Proposal 1: QE´s shall also be appointed for the Auditing work to obtain DOA
and POA that allows design and production work under ELA 1. This is fully in
line with basic regulation 216/2008 Chapter II Section I Article 20 2(a).
In addition to this, it must be ensured that a common level is achieved for
applicants throughout all the EASA member states. This is mostly the issue
from side of the QE´s, when they are approved and supervised by the
Authority solely. Involvement of the NAA´s because of varying capabilities in
practice shows that this is not the case and this will lead to different safety
levels and unfair competition . This problem can be overcome by a Pan
European QE. It is not the task of the EASA, or this NPA and comments, to
initiate such a Pan European QE, but the effect and usage, when it comes to
existence, must be defined.
Proposal 2: Pan-European QE´s by their pan European nature must be
appointed by the Agency. In case the applicant selects the Pan- European QE,
combined DOA/POA applications will be automatically dealt with by the Agency,
and not through CA´s or NAA´s.
Page 263 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Comment is valid also for the who does what table ELA 1; group
"organisational approval"
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 362 comment by: O. Reinhardt / Flightdesign
response Noted
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
This comment is also valid for several other locations as linked, and for the
Who does what- Table, there section "organisational approval" (not possible to
link exactly)
Proposal 1:
QE may be used by EASA to do technical tasks in relation with DOA approval
and by NAA to do technical tasks in relation with POA.
QE dealing with design will be accredited by EASA, so consistency should be
achieved. QE dealing with production will be accredited by NAA. However, the
way these accreditations are done will be checked by EASA through the
production standardisation work.
Proposal 2: A pan-European QE dealing with design issues will be approved by
EASA. The same QE dealing also with production can only be approved by
EASA if the affected Member States agree to it.
However, the policy to use QE has not been yet adopted by the EASA
Management Board.
comment 367 comment by: O. Reinhardt / Flightdesign
refers to "Accredition and Surveillance" on page 22:
Accreditation of Design Organizations must be under Agency, not NAA, already
now.
Comments to POA also have effect on last line here.
Page 264 of 446

esponse Not accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
DOA are issued by the Agency. Concerning POA, please see reply to comment
No 235.
comment 384 comment by: Thomas Wendt
Comment 7
Page 22 A. EXPLANATORY NOTE - Attachment 2 - Who does what -
Initial and Continued Airworthiness - ELA 1 - Organisational Approval
Comments 1 and 2 apply here as well - link same comment to this position.
Comment 8
Page 22 A. EXPLANATORY NOTE - Attachment 2 - Who does what -
Initial and Continued Airworthiness - ELA 1 - Accredition and
Surveillance
Accreditation of Design Organizations must be under Agency, not NAA, already
now.
Comments to POA also have effect on last line here.
response Not accepted
DOA are issued by the Agency. Concerning POA, please see reply to comment
No 235.
comment 400 comment by: Flight Design GmbH Matthias Betsch CEO
response Noted
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Proposal 1:
QE may be used by EASA to do technical tasks in relation with DOA approval
and by NAA to do technical tasks in relation with POA.
QE dealing with design will be accredited by EASA, so consistency should be
Page 265 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
achieved. QE dealing with production will be accredited by NAA. However, the
way these accreditations are done will be checked by EASA through the
production standardisation work.
Proposal 2: A pan-European QE dealing with design issues will be approved by
EASA. The same QE dealing also with production can only be approved by
EASA if the affected Member States agree to it.
However, the policy to use QE has not been adopted yet by the EASA
Management Board.
comment 417 comment by: Flight Design GmbH Matthias Betsch CEO
Accreditation of Design Organizations must be under Agency, not NAA, already
now.
Comments to POA also have effect on last line here.
response Not accepted
DOA are issued by the Agency. Concerning POA, please see reply to comment
No 235.
comment 455 comment by: www.fascination-pilots.de
response Noted
Comments 1 and 2 apply here as well – link same comment to this position.
See response to comment No 449.
comment 456 comment by: www.fascination-pilots.de
Accreditation of Design Organizations must be under Agency, not NAA, already
now.
Comments to POA also have effect on last line here.
response Not accepted
DOA are issued by the Agency. Concerning POA, please see reply to comment
No 235.
comment 470 comment by: Tegelbeckers
Comment 7
Page 22 A. EXPLANATORY NOTE - Attachment 2 - Who does what - Initial and
Continued Airworthiness - ELA 1 - Organisational Approval
Comments 1 and 2 apply here as well - link same comment to this position.
Comment 8
Page 22 A. EXPLANATORY NOTE - Attachment 2 - Who does what - Initial and
Continued Airworthiness - ELA 1 - Accredition and Surveillance
Accreditation of Design Organizations must be under Agency, not NAA, already
now.
Comments to POA also have effect on last line here.
response Not accepted
DOA are issued by the Agency. Concerning POA, please see reply to comment
Page 266 of 446

No 235.
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 491 comment by: light-wings Oliver Liedmann
response Noted
Comments 1 and 2 apply here as well - link same comment to this position
See response to comment No 449.
comment 507 comment by: aeroklaus
response Noted
Comment 7
Page 22 A. EXPLANATORY NOTE - Attachment 2 - Who does what - Initial and
Continued Airworthiness - ELA 1 – Organisational Approval
Comments 1 and 2 apply here as well – link same comment to this position.
See response to comment No 500.
comment 508 comment by: aeroklaus
Comment 8
Page 22 A. EXPLANATORY NOTE - Attachment 2 - Who does what - Initial and
Continued Airworthiness - ELA 1 – Accredition and Surveillance
Accreditation of Design Organizations must be under Agency, not NAA, already
now.
Comments to POA also have effect on last line here.
response Not accepted
DOA are issued by the Agency. Concerning POA, please see reply to comment
No 235.
comment 587 comment by: klaus M
response Noted
Comment 7
Page 22 A. EXPLANATORY NOTE - Attachment 2 - Who does what - Initial and
Continued Airworthiness - ELA 1 - Organisational Approval
Comments 1 and 2 apply here as well - link same comment to this position.
See reply to comment No 580.
comment 588 comment by: klaus M
Comment 8
Page 22 A. EXPLANATORY NOTE - Attachment 2 - Who does what - Initial and
Continued Airworthiness - ELA 1 - Accredition and Surveillance
Accreditation of Design Organizations must be under Agency, not NAA, already
now.
Comments to POA also have effect on last line here.
response Not accepted
Page 267 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
DOA are issued by the Agency. Concerning POA, please see reply to comment
No 235.
comment 617 comment by: Cessna Aircraft Company
response Noted
QE´s shall also be appointed for the Auditing work to obtain DOA and POA that
allows design and production work under ELA 1. This is fully in line with basic
regulation 216/2008 Chapter II Section I Article 20 2(a). In addition to this, it
must be ensured that a common level is achieved for applicants throughout all
the EASA member states. This problem can be overcome by a Pan European
QE. Pan-European QE´s by their pan European nature must be appointed by
the Agency. In case the applicant selects the Pan- European QE, combined
DOA/POA applications will be automatically dealt with by the Agency, and not
through CA´s or NAA´s.
The policy on QE has not been yet adopted by the EASA Management Board.
comment 632 comment by: Martin Josef Warken
response Noted
Comment 7
Page 22 A. EXPLANATORY NOTE - Attachment 2 - Who does what -
Initial and Continued Airworthiness - ELA 1 - Organisational Approval
Comments 1 and 2 apply here as well - link same comment to this position.
See reply to comment No 624.
comment 633 comment by: Martin Josef Warken
Comment 8
Page 22 A. EXPLANATORY NOTE - Attachment 2 - Who does what -
Initial and Continued Airworthiness - ELA 1 - Accredition and
Surveillance
Accreditation of Design Organizations must be under Agency, not NAA, already
now.
Comments to POA also have effect on last line here.
response Not accepted
DOA are issued by the Agency. Concerning POA, please see reply to comment
No 235.
comment 666 comment by: DGAC France
1a. COMMENT TO :
ü Explanatory Note
1b. AFFECTED PARAGRAPH :
Attachement 2 and 3 :
Page 268 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
2. Comment:
La répartition proposée des tâches entre l'EASA et la NAA ou Entité qualifiée
présentée en Attachements 2 et 3 doit être revue pour plus de cohérence. En
particulier, pour des raisons de standardisation, la DGAC recommande que les
bases de certification, le manuel de vol et les limites de vie soient approuvées
par l'AESA.
La DGAC recommande que la répartition des tâches finalisées entre entité
certifiant et l'AESA soit incluse dans la procédure AESA sur la certification
ELA.[A1]
Courtesy translation:
DGAC recommends that the task repartition between EASA and the certifying
body would be included in the EASA procedure on ELA Certification. For
standardisation reasons, DGAC recommends that the Airplane Flight Manuel
and the certification programme would be approved by the EASA.
[A1]Le programme de certification semble toujours approuvé par l'AESA
The Agency intends to approve special conditions, equivalent safety and
certification plan. The Agency considers that this ensures sufficient
standardisation between projects.
comment 692 comment by: Evektor
response Noted
EVEKTOR position:
Certification
1. ... "Agrement of certification basis.." vs. "Approval of certification plan"-
both tasks are connected each other, approval (both tasks) by Qualified
Enitity and EASA acceptance (certification plan) would by sufficient,
2. "Confirmation of compliance" and "Technical visa for Approval of flight
conditions..."- there is no information similar to ..."involvement reduced
in case...."
Post TC approval /Individual aircraft
1. "Approval of minor changes" / "Approval of minor repair" wouldn't be
necessary to approved by EASA, if Qualified Entity approved "technical
visa", Qualified Entity is able to approved minor changes/minor repair.
The EASA Management Board has not adopted yet the policy for qualified
entities.
comment 711 comment by: procomposite
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
Page 269 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Proposal 1:
QE may be used by EASA to do technical tasks in relation to DOA approval and
by NAA to do technical tasks in relation to POA.
QE dealing with design will be accredited by EASA, so consistency should be
achieved. QE dealing with production will be accredited by NAA. However, the
way these accreditations are done will be checked by EASA through the
production standardisation work.
Proposal 2: A pan-European QE dealing with design issues will be approved by
EASA. The same QE dealing also with production can only be approved by
EASA if the affected Member States agree to it.
However, the policy to use QE has not been yet adopted by the EASA
Management Board.
comment 731 comment by: Oliver
negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Proposal 1: QE´s shall also be appointed for the Auditing work to obtain DOA
and POA that allows design and production work under ELA 1. This is fully in
line with basic regulation 216/2008 Chapter II Section I Article 20 2(a).
In addition to this, it must be ensured that a common level is achieved for
applicants throughout all the EASA member states. This is mostly the issue
from side of the QE´s, when they are approved and supervised by the
Authority solely. Involvement of the NAA´s because of varying capabilities in
practice shows that this is not the case and this will lead to different safety
levels and unfair competition . This problem can be overcome by a Pan
European QE. It is not the task of the EASA, or this NPA and comments, to
initiate such a Pan European QE, but the effect and usage, when it comes to
existence, must be defined.
Proposal 2: Pan-European QE´s by their pan European nature must be
appointed by the Agency. In case the applicant selects the Pan- European QE,
combined DOA/POA applications will be automatically dealt with by the Agency,
and not through CA´s or NAA´s.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph b(6).
comment 732 comment by: Oliver
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
Page 270 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Proposal 1:
QE may be used by EASA to do technical tasks in relation to DOA approval and
by NAA to do technical tasks in relation to POA.
QE dealing with design will be accredited by EASA, so consistency should be
achieved. QE dealing with production will be accredited by NAA. However, the
way these accreditations are done will be checked by EASA through the
production standardisation work.
Proposal 2: A pan-European QE dealing with design issues will be approved by
EASA. The same QE dealing also with production can only be approved by
EASA if the affected Member States agree to it.
However, the policy to use QE has not been yet adopted by the EASA
Management Board.
comment 733 comment by: Oliver
Accreditation of Design Organizations must be under Agency, not NAA, already
now.
Comments to POA also have effect on last line here.
response Not accepted
DOA are issued by the Agency. Concerning POA, please see reply to comment
No 235.
comment 757 comment by: Air Marugan
response Noted
Comment 7
Page 22 A. EXPLANATORY NOTE - Attachment 2 - Who does what -
Initial and Continued Airworthiness - ELA 1 - Organisational Approval
Comments 1 and 2 apply here as well - link same comment to this position.
Page 271 of 446

See reply to comment No 750.
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 758 comment by: Air Marugan
Comment 8
Page 22 A. EXPLANATORY NOTE - Attachment 2 - Who does what -
Initial and Continued Airworthiness - ELA 1 - Accredition and
Surveillance
Accreditation of Design Organizations must be under Agency, not NAA, already
now.
Comments to POA also have effect on last line here.
response Not accepted
DOA are issued by the Agency. Concerning POA, please see reply to comment
No 235.
comment 782 comment by: Herbert HERGET
response Noted
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the20most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be=2 0clearly
underlined, that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved
is so high, that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft. There is no
connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production quality
system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level of safety
achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience, any rising
of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with additional
safety. As a fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient market
self control, than could be achieved by Agency control. This is the background
for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with the EASA DOA and
POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO qualifications of
companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing. In all countries,
where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt aircrafts,
Annex II), it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a reason for
less safety and can even improve safety.
Proposal 1:
QE may be used by EASA to do technical tasks in relation to DOA approval and
by NAA to do technical tasks in relation to POA.
QE dealing with design will be accredited by EASA so consistency should be
achieved. QE dealing with production will be accredited by NAA. However, the
way these accreditations are done will be checked by EASA through the
production standardisation work.
Proposal 2: A pan-European QE dealing with design issues will be approved by
EASA. The same QE dealing also with production can only be approved by
EASA if the affected Member States agree to it.
However, the policy to use QE has not been yet adopted by the EASA
Management Board.
comment 783 comment by: Herbert HERGET
Page 272 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
I ssue of a "special airworthiness certificate (SAC)" according to FAA-LSA
procedure instead of a type certification (TC) for CS-LSA. The certification
procedure as described in Attachment 2 must not be applied for issueing a
"special airworthiness certificate (SAC)". The issue of SAC has strictly to be
reduced to the procedure described under Comment 14: Creation of a
Certification Specification - Light Sport Aeroplane (CS-LSA) identically to
the FAA-LSA procedure. If this is not respected, CS-LSA will never be
animated. Instead, we will have an equivalent to the already existing VLA
category, nobody wants and nobody needs.
The Basic Regulation requires that aircraft must have a type certificate or a
restricted type certificate. The task BR.010 will explore other possibilities that
will require modifications to the Basic Regulation.
comment 784 comment by: Herbert HERGET
response Noted
No approvals, related to a TC for CS-LSA. After issueing a "special
airworthiness certificate (SAC)" for initial airworthiness, all requirements have
strictly to be reduced to the analogue requirements within the framework of
FAA-LSA. If this is not respected, CS-LSA will never be animated. Instead, we
will have an equivalent to the already existing VLA category, nobody wants and
nobody needs. Validation of third country TC has to be supplemented by
validation of third country Special Airworthiness Certificate (SAC) according to
FAA-LSA.
The Basic Regulation requires that aircraft must have a type certificate or a
restricted type certificate. The task BR.010 will explore other possibilities that
will require modifications to the Basic Regulation.
A. EXPLANATORY NOTE - Attachment 2 - Who does what - Initial and
Continued Airworthiness - ELA 2
p. 23-25
comment 211 comment by: Walter Gessky
response Noted
Attachment 3
Comment to ELA 2:
•1) Validation of third country TC:
Validation tasks should be only allocated to NAA`s,
Applicant might not hold a DOA
Third county NAA shall be involved in the stat5ement on compliance,
Bilateral agreement procedures must be taken into account.
2) Combined approval: practical work: allocation can be done to NAA or QE.
The text has to be revised because it gives the impression that EASA can only
allocate to a QE.
The EASA Management Board has not yet adopted the policy for using
Qualified Entities.
comment 212 comment by: Walter Gessky
Page 273 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Attachment 3
Comment to ELA 2:
•1) Validation of third country TC:
Validation tasks should be only allocated to NAA`s,
Applicant might not hold a DOA
Third county NAA shall be involved in the stat5ement on compliance,
Bilateral agreement procedures must be taken into account.
2) Combined approval: practical work: allocation can be done to NAA or QE.
The text has to be revised because it gives the impression that EASA can only
allocate to a QE.
The EASA Management Board has not adopted yet the policy for using
Qualified Entities.
comment 442 comment by: Filippo De Florio
response Noted
Attachement 3
Certification basis ;
o If industry standards shall be allowed, the Par. 21A.16A should also be
modified.
o Standards like CS-23 are the result of one century’s experience and I
doubt that they could be easily replaced by industry standards.
o An ELA certified with such a standard cannot be exported without a
complete compliance with the applicable standard (e. g. CS-23).
o Why industry standards are allowed for ELA 2 and not for ELA 1 ?
(except LSA).
o In any case, Attachement 3 does not explain how these industry
standards are approved before talking about SC and ESF.
After review of comments, the intention is to use well known certification codes
except for LSA where a CS-LSA has been created. This CS refers to ASTM
standard F2245. The EASA intends to participate in the ASTM process. Should
a subsequent amendment of the ASTM standard not be acceptable to EASA, an
amendment to the CS-LSA will be produced.
comment 442 comment by: Filippo De Florio
response Noted
Attachement 3
Certification basis ;
o If industry standards shall be allowed, the Par. 21A.16A should also be
modified.
o Standards like CS-23 are the result of one century’s experience and I
doubt that they could be easily replaced by industry standards.
o An ELA certified with such a standard cannot be exported without a
complete compliance with the applicable standard (e. g. CS-23).
o Why industry standards are allowed for ELA 2 and not for ELA 1 ?
(except LSA).
o In any case, Attachement 3 does not explain how these industry
standards are approved before talking about SC and ESF.
Page 274 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
After review of comments, the intention is to use well known certification codes
except for LSA where a CS-LSA has been created. This CS refers to ASTM
standard F2245. The EASA intends to participate in the ASTM process. Should
a subsequent amendment of the ASTM standard not be acceptable to EASA, an
amendment to the CS-LSA will be produced.
comment 692 comment by: Evektor
response Noted
EVEKTOR position:
Certification
1. ... "Agrement of certification basis.." vs. "Approval of certification plan"-
both tasks are connected each other, approval (both tasks) by Qualified
Enitity and EASA acceptance (certification plan) would by sufficient,
2. "Confirmation of compliance" and "Technical visa for Approval of flight
conditions..."- there is no information similar to ..."involvement reduced
in case...."
Post TC approval /Individual aircraft
1. "Approval of minor changes" / "Approval of minor repair" wouldn't be
necessary to approved by EASA, if Qualified Entity approved "technical
visa", Qualified Entity is able to approved minor changes/minor repair.
The EASA Management Board has not adopted yet the policy for using
Qualified Entities.
comment 694 comment by: Evektor
response Noted
EVEKTOR position:
" Minor change approval"- threre is no cross.
The EASA Management Board has not adopted yet the policy for using
Qualified Entities.
B. DRAFT RULES p. 26
comment 218 comment by: DynAero Iberica
response Noted
DynAero Ibérica soutient ces propositions.
DynAero Ibérica supports these proposals.
The Agency thanks the commentator for their support.
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 p. 26
comment 2 comment by: Francis Fagegaltier Services
For aeroplanes, we can find the following mass limits in Part 21 and aircraft
certification specifications (after adoption of this NPA):
750 kg or 850 kg in CS-22, 750 kg in CS-VLA, 600 kg in CS-LSA, 2000 kg in
Page 275 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
the new 21A.14, 2722 kg in CS-23 by means of NPA 2008-08, 2730 kg in the
new 21A.35 (a)(2), 5670 kg in CS-23 and .... 5700 kg in the new 21A.96 (a)
(and 21A.436 (a)).
Is there an intent to rationalise all these limits, particularly the discrepency
between CS-23 and Part 21A.96 ? It is noted that CS-27 and Part 21A.96 are
consistent (3175 kg in both cases).
Note : the whole picture is even more complex with Annex II of 216/2008
Basic Regulation and its mass limits of 300 kg, 450 kg, 330 kg, 495 kg, 472,5
kg and 315 kg !
This situation is due to history. The EASA will consider a possible rationalisation
of all these criteria in future rulemaking tasks.
comment 347 comment by: Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Switzerland
response Noted
Critical parts versus life-limited parts:
The proposed text replaces the concept of "critical parts" by "life-limited parts"
in various aspects of the regulation (21A.139(c), 21A.804(c) and 21A.805.
Comments:
The concept of life-limited parts is not adequate and should be replaced by
critical parts as not all the critical parts are life-limited. The criteria shall be the
effect on the safety. Typically a light sport aircraft has various critical parts
whose failure would lead to a catastrophic event and hence which shall have
special attention in the production but which are not life limited (e.g flight
controls, main structural attachments ...). This comment also applies to
21A.804(c) and 21A.805.
The concept of critical parts is not clearly defined for all aircraft categories.
This explains the use of life-limited parts.
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart B p. 26
comment 77 comment by: Dyn'aéro
response Noted
Dyn'Aero soutient ces propositions.
Dyn'Aero supports these proposals.
The Agency thanks the commentator for their support.
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart B - 21A.14
Demonstration of of capability
p. 26-27
comment 3 comment by: Francis Fagegaltier Services
It is noted that the exemption from DOA for designers of "piston engines" and
"propellers", previously found in 21A.14 (b) 3, 4 and 5, is now cancelled.
Page 276 of 446

esponse Accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
It is recognised that some exemptions are still possible for engines and
propellers installed in some aircraft by means of the new 21A.14 (b) and (c).
However, it might exist cases where this new Part 21 would make DOA
mandatory for some design organisations not previously submitted to such
obligation.
This potential increase in scope of DOA has not been justified in the
explanatory note of this NPA.
Does the EASA intend to apply this new rule retroactively to piston engine and
propeller designers, imposing a DOA subpart J to some of them ?
The text will be revised accordingly. The proposal will only apply to new
applications.
comment 4 comment by: Francis Fagegaltier Services
response Noted
In 21A.14 (b) and (c), we find the concept of "complex-motor-powered
aircraft". It appears that the NPA does not contain a definition of this
"wording". It does not appear in CS-Definitions.
How can Part 21 be applied if this important definition is not known ?
It is also noted that the wording "complex aircraft" is also used in the
explanatory part of this NPA, as well as the wording "non-complex airship" or
"non-complex aircraft".
This is confusing for an "average" reader which was not involved in the
rulemaking task MDM.032.
However, "complex-motor-powered aircraft" is defined in article 3 of Basic
Regulation 216/2008. But this definition refers to aeroplanes exceeding 5700
kg : how can an aeroplane with a MTOM less than 2000 or 1000 kg be
classified as a "complex-motor-powered aircraft" ? Simply because its engine
would be a very small turbine engine (turbojet, turbofan or turbopropeller) as
noted in last hyphen of definition in article (3)(j)(i) in Basic Regulation) ? What
would be the technical justification for this discrimination against a specific
technology with regard to demonstration of aircraft design capability ?
The definition of complex motor-powered aircraft is included in the Basic
Regulation. In such a case the definition should not be repeated in Part-21.
This definition considers as complex any aircraft equipped with a turbo-jet.
comment 59 comment by: John Tempest
21A.14 (c)
Guidance material is required here as to the role of the QE. Although the
applicant may submit a Certification Plan to EASA, it is presumed that part of
the Certification Plan would need to identify the NAA or QE to be used to
confirm compliance.
Attachment 2 for ELA 1 makes it clear that confirmation of compliance with the
Page 277 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
requirements will be necessary for ELA 1 (and of course ELA-2 will be subject
to normal DOA procedures). However, this paragraph as-writted does not
make it clear that compliance verification by NAA or QE is a requirement.
This is an important point to highlight because for the FAA/ASTM LSA rules and
standards, compliance verification is left in the hands of the
designer/manufacturer - no external validation is required. The FAA approach
places responsibility directly in the hands of the manufacturer. However, I do
not believe that this is the intention of this NPA.
The EASA Management Board has not adopted yet the policy for using
Qualified Entities.
comment 77 comment by: Dyn'aéro
response Noted
Dyn'Aero soutient ces propositions.
Dyn'Aero supports these proposals.
The Agency thanks the commentator for their support.
comment 94 comment by: René Fournier
response Accepted
A combined review of the amendments suggested by NPA 2008-06 and NPA
2008-07 creates some confusion about existing TCs for ELA 1 products.
Paragraph 21A.14 applies to such existing TCs through a cross-reference in
21A.44. The wording for 21A.44 suggested in NPA 2008-06 includes a new
reference to an "alternative procedure". In this NPA 2008-07, "alternative
procedures" are however only mentioned in 21A.14 (b) and not in (c).
The proposed wording for subparagraph 21A.14 (c) refers to the approval of a
certification programme. This is a pragmatic and welcome solution in case of
applications for a new TC. The continued airworthiness of existing TCs for ELA
1 products does not however always require a certification programme.
Consequently, does the reference to an "alternative procedure" in 21A.44 - as
suggested in NPA 2008-06 - mean that any holder of a TC for ELA 1 products
would still need to be approved under alternative procedures?
Should that be the case, as it seems, the reference to a certification
programme introduced by 21A.14 (c) would then prove somewhat cosmetic.
The only advantage would thus be to allow applicants for a new TC not yet
approved by the Agency under alternative procedures to differ the
establishment of their post TC approval procedures. This is a certainly
desirable procedural improvement, though not very far reaching.
To avoid such confusion, 21A.44 (a) could then still be redrafted as follows:
"(a) undertake the obligations laid down in 21A.3, 21A.3B, 21A.4, 21A.55,
21A.57 and 21A.61; and, for this purpose, shall continue to meet the
requirements for eligibility under 21A.14 (a) and (b) or, for aircraft defined
in 21A.14 (c), as an alternative procedure, seek the Agency agreement for
the use of procedures setting out its activities to undertake these obligations".
Page 278 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Please see CRD Part I paragraph (c) resulting text.
comment 98 comment by: European Sailplane Manufacturers
response Accepted
The European sailplane manufacturers would like to see a clarification
regarding the definition of the ELA category.
As it is worded here it is clear that being a "complex motor-powered aircraft"
automatically exludes this aircraft from the ELA definition.
In the new basic regulation EC 216/2008 the"complex motor-powered aircraft"
is now defined as either
- a tilt rotor aircraft
- a helicopter over 3175 kg / with more than 9 passengers / with a minimum
crew of 2 or more
- an aeroplane over 5700 kg / more than 19 passengers / with a minimum
crew of 2 or more / with a turbojet or more / with more than one turboprops.
It has now been asked several times what to to with a powered glider which is
equiped with a jet engine.
Some argue this is an aeroplane and therefore "complex motor-powered
aircraft" some say that an aeroplane is always a small motor aircraft which
needs the engine to fly regularly whereas a powered sailplane can operate with
engine shut off as normal operating mode.
When going through existing regulation it becomes clear that indeed EASA
considered aeroplanes not to be (powered or non-powered) sailplanes. So does
ICAO when defining in Annex 8 Part V "small aeroplanes" as those which "are
known in some states as normal, utility or aerobatic aeroplanes" (clearly
referring to the CS-23 or FAR 23 category).
Therefore the European sailplane manufacturers propose the following wording
for paragraph 21A.14(b) and (c):
...
An aeroplane with MTOM less than xxxxx kg that is not classified as
complex-motor-powered aircraft
A sailplane or powered sailplane with MTOM less than xxxxx kg
A balloon
....
With this wording the sense is completely clear and it will not happen that
someone is considering a sailplane with a model turbine jet as self-sustainer to
be a complex aircraft when an aeroplane with a turboprop with 5600 kg MTOM
and 18 passengers would be no complex aircraft!
This is fully in-line with the CS-22 airworthiness requirements which historically
have always been simpler and less stringent due to the fact that a powered
sailplane is not automatically experiencing an emergency in case of an engibne
shutdown or failure (whereas an aeroplane is).
Remark:
Obviously this wording will have to be changed also in Part-66 (certifying staff)
and Part-M (continuing airworthiness) for consistency of these regulations.
Page 279 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
We could modify the definition of ELA as proposed based on the fact that it
clarifies and does not contradict the Basic Regulation. The argument would rely
on the definition of airplane and powered sailplane: powered sailplane refers to
aircraft and not airplanes. Airplanes refer to engine-driven which imply
continuing use. Therefore jet-powered sailplanes are not included in complex
motor aeroplanes. As a consequence, they are part of ELA. It is also proposed
to envisage a modification to the Basic Regulation to clarify this position as the
main driver for the discussion was VLJ (see task BR.010).
comment 99 comment by: European Sailplane Manufacturers
response Accepted
In this NPA 2008-07 the scope of products inculudes
An engine installed in aircraft referred to in this paragraph
The European sailplane manufacturers agree to this wording which does not
limit the type of engine for several reasons:
1. The manufacturers do point out that installation of any engine in an
powered sailplane should not be regulated too stringent because these
type of aircraft are not critical in case of engine shutdown or failure (see
parallel comment regarding jet engines versus complex-motor-powered
aircraft).
2. The different EASA publications/presentations regarding MDM.032 had
the wording "piston engine" instead as of "engine" which would also
exclude electric or other non-piston type of engines.
3. The manufacturers feel that especially in the field of propulsion
technology new approaches will be asked for in the next years and that
General Aviation could indeed help to develop new concepts. This would
be unduely burdened by too tight regulation.
The Agency thanks the commentator for their support.
comment 114 comment by: Ultraleicht-Flugverein Saar-Pfalz e.V.
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high,
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As a fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, than could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries, where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II), it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
Page 280 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 115 comment by: Ultraleicht-Flugverein Saar-Pfalz e.V.
response Noted
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart J. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart J, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the design assurance system (21A.239) on the basis of
a valid approval following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration,
but valid positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN
ISO 9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 143 comment by: Apex Aircraft
response Noted
Attachment #3
On se prépare aujourd'hui à rajouter 2 limites dans le part 21 qui permettront
de définir les process ELA1 ou ELA2.
Une limite de 6000 lb existe au niveau du part 21A.101c) qui traite des bases
de certification pour toute modification. Pourquoi ne pas choisir des sous
multiples de 6000 lb. Ainsi, on pourrait par exemple définir le process ELA1 par
"process s'appliquant aux aéronef de moins de 3000 lb, ..." et ELA2 par
"process s'appliquant aux aéronef de moins de 3000 lb, ..."
Ci-joint le fichier part21.pdf qui résume les différentes limites en masse du
part21.
The Agency agrees that the simplification and rationalisation of the criteria
within ELA1 and ELA2 would be useful. The Agency will consider this in future
rulemaking tasks.
comment 146 comment by: ENAC
The definitions of ELA (as proposed in 21A.14) appear not consistent with the
scope of the proposal NPA and unless an arbitrary weigt treshold for some
aircraft do not provide any limitation or reasonable criteria to verify the
Page 281 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
applicability of simplified certificating process.
response Not accepted
Comment not understood.
comment 172 comment by: Alexander Eich
response Noted
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart J. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart J, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the design assurance system (21A.239) on the basis of
a valid approval following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration,
but valid positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN
ISO 9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 243 comment by: Ronald MEYER
Comment 4
Page 26/27 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart B - 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high,
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As a fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, than could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries, where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
Page 282 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
aircrafts, Annex II), it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production
comment 244 comment by: Ronald MEYER
response Noted
Comment 5
Page 26/27 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart B - 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Negative. The proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, which we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart J. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, as long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart J, but limited to products coming within ELA 1, when deviating from
the relevant paragraphs for the design assurance system (21A.239) on the
basis of a valid approval following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self
declaration, but valid positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO
9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The approval will be accepted without further
auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 256 comment by: Gorden WIEGELS
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
Page 283 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 262 comment by: Gorden WIEGELS
response Noted
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart J. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart J, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the design assurance system (21A.239) on the basis of
a valid approval following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration,
but valid positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN
ISO 9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 268 comment by: Gorden WIEGELS
response Accepted
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph“.
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that - probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter -
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in …“. The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Existing presentations have been modified.
comment 277 comment by: Klaus Erger
Comment 9
Page 26/27 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart
B - 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Page 284 of 446

esponse Noted
Comment 2 also valid here
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Comment 10
Page 26/27 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart
B - 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart J. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart J, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the design assurance system (21A.239) on the basis of
a valid approval following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration,
but valid positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN
ISO 9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 295 comment by: Karg
response Noted
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights -
mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world - in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are already flying (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II), it is proven that deregulation in general is not reason for
less safety, much more it can even improve safety.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
Page 285 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 296 comment by: Karg
response Noted
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart J. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart J, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the design assurance system (21A.239) on the basis of
a valid approval following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration,
but valid positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN
ISO 9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 306 comment by: Karg
response Accepted
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph".
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that - probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter -
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in ...". The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Existing presentations have been changed.
comment 317 comment by: TECNAM
response Noted
Comment 2 also valid here
Please see reply to comment No 308.
comment 318 comment by: TECNAM
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
Page 286 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
the privileges as defined in Subpart J. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart J, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the design assurance system (21A.239) on the basis of
a valid approval following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration,
but valid positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN
ISO 9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 329 comment by: TECNAM
response Accepted
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph“.
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that – probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter –
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in …“. The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Existing presentations have been modified.
comment 333 comment by: Luftfahrt-Bundesamt
The design of a small aeroplane, or some equipment for sports aviation, is
sometimes performed by experienced enigneers, if a company is already
established. On the other hand, small companies are emerging and
disappearing more often. The start-up of small companies results very often
from a sideline job of an enthusiast. Later on, the hobby converts to a new
profession. From our point of view, such development should be possible
without falling below a minimum safety standard.
Big companies, assigned with many experienced engineers, do not need
"technical surveillance" but are surveyed by "procedural tools". Small
companies, with a small number of experienced engineering staff - or
sometimes not very experienced staff - do need a competent technical care /
supervision, whereas it may be questioned if procedural control will add
significant safety to the products.
Conclusion: The smaller - or the more unexperienced - a company is, the
smaller is the need for procedural control, but the need for competent technical
care / supervision increases.
The NPA is mainly focussed on "procedural changes", seeming to imply the
unquestionably professional character of applicants. This is an assumption that
- from our point of view and experience - is far away from reality.
Applicants shall have the possibility to take advantage from the experience
Page 287 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
gathered with an aviation authority, therefore we propose the following change
to 21A.14 c):
(c) By way of derogation from paragraph (a), an applicant may elect for
compliance demonstration the verification by the Agency when the product is
one of the following:
The Agency will develop certification procedures for ELA. These procedures will
define the level of implication of the Agency: such level will depend among
other thigs on the experience of the designer.
comment 358 comment by: Aero-Club of Switzerland
response Noted
Please rename the "Very Light Rotorcraft" as proposed!.
See reply to comment No 214.
comment 362 comment by: O. Reinhardt / Flightdesign
response Noted
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
This comment is also valid for several other locations as linked, and for the
Who does what- Table, there section "organisational approval" (not possible to
link exactly)
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 369 comment by: O. Reinhardt / Flightdesign
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Page 288 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart J. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart J, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the design assurance system (21A.239) on the basis of
a valid approval following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration,
but valid positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN
ISO 9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 375 comment by: O. Reinhardt / Flightdesign
response Accepted
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph“.
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that – probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter –
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in …“. The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Existing presentations have been changed.
comment 385 comment by: Thomas Wendt
Comment 9
Page 26/27 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart B - 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Comment 2 also valid here
Comment 10
Page 26/27 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart B - 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart J. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
Page 289 of 446

only.
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart J, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the design assurance system (21A.239) on the basis of
a valid approval following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration,
but valid positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN
ISO 9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Page 26/27 B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart B - 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph".
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that - probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter -
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in ...". The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
response Partially accepted
Existing presentations have been changed.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 400 comment by: Flight Design GmbH Matthias Betsch CEO
response Noted
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 409 comment by: CAA CZ
Editorial change only: we propose to number (1, 2 ...) the proposed items and
the sub-items (i, ii, ...) as was in the previous text.
Page 290 of 446

esponse Accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Text will be amended accordingly.
comment 418 comment by: Flight Design GmbH Matthias Betsch CEO
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart J. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart J, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the design assurance system (21A.239) on the basis of
a valid approval following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration,
but valid positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN
ISO 9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Partially accepted
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 420 comment by: Flight Design GmbH Matthias Betsch CEO
response Accepted
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph".
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that - probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter -
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in ...". The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Existing presentations have been changed.
comment 457 comment by: www.fascination-pilots.de
response Noted
Comment 2 also valid here
Please see reply to comment No 449.
comment 458 comment by: www.fascination-pilots.de
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Page 291 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart J. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart J, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the design assurance system (21A.239) on the basis of
a valid approval following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration,
but valid positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN
ISO 9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 471 comment by: Tegelbeckers
response Noted
Comment 9
Page 26/27 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart
B - 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Comment 2 also valid here
Comment 10
Page 26/27 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart
B - 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart J. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart J, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the design assurance system (21A.239) on the basis of
a valid approval following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration,
but valid positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN
ISO 9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 478 comment by: Tegelbeckers
Page 26/27 B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart B
Page 292 of 446

esponse Accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
- 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph".
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that - probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter -
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in ...". The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Existing presentations have been changed.
comment 492 comment by: light-wings Oliver Liedmann
response Noted
Comment 2 also valid here.
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart J. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart J, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the design assurance system (21A.239) on the basis of
a valid approval following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration,
but valid positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN
ISO 9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 509 comment by: aeroklaus
response Noted
Comment 9
Page 26/27 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart
B - 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Comment 2 also valid here
Please see reply to comment No 502.
comment 510 comment by: aeroklaus
Comment 10
Page 26/27 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart
B - 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Page 293 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart J. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart J, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the design assurance system (21A.239) on the basis of
a valid approval following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration,
but valid positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN
ISO 9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 527 comment by: Austro Control GmbH
21A.14 versus 21A.44 Continuing Airworthiness ELA 1
Comment:
According 21A.14(c) NPA for an ELA1 aircraft a certification program is
acceptable for application. To fulfill the continuing airworthiness requirements
in 21A.44 it is not clear if a DOA is required. Furthermore, looking into
attachment 2 list there are all organisations involved. This is definitely
overregulated and confusing. Who is responsible for the requirement in
accordance to 21A.44?
The comparable system in the USA and EU (Annex II aircraft), for this category
an TC Holder without an DOA is acceptable. There is no safety impact. In case
of service difficulties an AD is sufficient to prevent the unsafe condition.
Proposal
Within the ELA1 a current DOA shall not be required for an current TC. The
continuing airworthiness obligations may be taken over by POA or DOA or a QE
or a NAA or a competent authority. This may be also an organisation with an
combined approval.
21A.44 shall be amended by adding the following:
(c) the obligations of (a) and (b) for ELA1 may be transferred to an approved
POA, DOA, QE or NAA or an organisation with a combined approval.
response Not accepted
The obligations of the designer should be the same for type certification or
continuing airworthiness.
comment 528 comment by: Austro Control GmbH
21A.14 (b) and (c) Rotorcraft
Comment
Page 294 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
There should be no reference to VLR. Rotorcraft below 1000kg should be part
of ELA1.
Proposal
Delete VLR in (b)
Add rotorcraft below 1000kg in (c) ELA 1
The only helicopter eligible for the ELA process is VLR: in this case it is ELA2.
comment 564 comment by: UK CAA
response Accepted
Subject/Topic Comments on the proposed changes to Part 21
NPA
Comment
Section/Page
21A.14 Pages 26 The NPAs for engineer licences need to checked for
and 27
consistency with descriptions of ELA1 and ELA2 given in
ELA1 and ELA2 this NPA.
definitions
These definitions do not specify that the ELAs are manned.
As written the derogation and ELA processes would apply
to unmanned aircraft above 150 kg. Unmanned Aircraft
Systems (UAS) are inherently complex systems, utilising
flight critical software. Also, the Agency has not yet
established its formal detailed position on the appropriate
standards to apply to UAS.
It is suggested that each line of the ELA 1 and 2 definitions
should begin "A manned ......" so that unmanned aircraft
are excluded.
The Agency agrees with the intent of the comment and will consider an
improvement to the wording.
Please note that the Agency has now published a policy statement for
Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) at:
http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/c/doc/Policy_Statements/E.Y013-
01_%20UAS_%20Policy.pdf
This policy statement defines the capability for design for UAS.
comment 589 comment by: klaus M
response Noted
Comment 9
Page 26/27 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart
B - 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Comment 2 also valid here
Please see response to comment No 582.
comment 590 comment by: klaus M
Comment 10
Page 26/27 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart
B - 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Page 295 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart J. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart J, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the design assurance system (21A.239) on the basis of
a valid approval following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration,
but valid positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN
ISO 9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 609 comment by: Cessna Aircraft Company
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Proposal 1: A subparagraph/block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA
privileges as defined in Subpart J, but limited to products falling under ELA 1,
when deviating from the relevant paragraphs for the design assurance system
(21A.239) on the basis of a valid approval following the appropriate ASTM
standard (no self declaration, but valid positive audit of accepted organization),
DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The approval will be accepted without
further auditing or checking. Adding section (d) will allow U.S. LSA aircraft
manufacturers to provide safe and reliable aircraft to European customers.
Adding section (d) will ensure aircraft flown by the public continue to meet the
highest EASA and ASTM standards available.
Proposal 2: Recommend the following wording be adopted as the new
subparagraph/block (d):
"(d) By way of derogation from paragraph (a), an applicant may
elect to use an alternative procedure to demonstrate its capability for ELA 1
certification.
An applicant may seek Agency agreement for the use of ASTM F37
light-sport aircraft consensus standards which sets out the specific
design practices, resources, sequences and quality control of activities
necessary to comply with this Part, when the product is an ELA 1
aircraft.
The Agency will accept and approve applicants who meet ASTM F37 light sport
aircraft consensus certification standards without meeting other Agency
standards.
The Agency reserves the right to audit or check the applicant to ensure
ASTM F37 light sport aircraft standards have been met.
Proposal 3: Cessna Aircraft Company recommends that a stand-alone
Page 296 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
European light-sport aircraft (LSA) category be established as it offers the
greatest opportunity for promoting aviation within Europe.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 627 comment by: Peter VON BURG
response Noted
The proposal is in the right direction, but please include other equivalent
quality standards than subpart J for ELA1 as well. DIN EN ISO 9000 or 9100
among others should be sufficient for ELA1
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 634 comment by: Martin Josef Warken
response Noted
Comment 9
Page 26/27 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart B - 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Comment 2 also valid here
Please see reply to comment No 628.
comment 635 comment by: Martin Josef Warken
Comment 10
Page 26/27 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart B - 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart J. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart J, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the design assurance system (21A.239) on the basis of
a valid approval following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration,
but valid positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN
ISO 9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Page 297 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 650 comment by: Martin Josef Warken
response Accepted
Comment 20
Page 5/6 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Overview of the proposals included in this NPA
Page 6 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - ELA 1
Page 7 A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and of
the draft decision - Further considerations on the European Light
Aircraft Process - ELA 2
Page 26/27 B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart B - 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph".
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that - probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter -
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in ...". The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Existing presentations have been changed.
comment 670 comment by: EAA
Attachment #4
Page 26/27 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart
B - 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Proposal 1: A subparagraph/block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA
privileges as defined in Subpart J, but limited to products falling under ELA 1
when deviating from the relevant paragraphs for the design assurance system
(21A.239) on the basis of a valid approval following the appropriate ASTM
standard (no self declaration, but valid positive audit of accepted organization),
DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The approval will be accepted without
further auditing or checking. Adding section (d) will allow U.S. LSA aircraft
manufacturers to provide safe and reliable aircraft to European customers.
Adding section (d) will ensure aircraft flown by the public continue to meet the
highest EASA and ASTM standards available.
Proposal 2: The Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) has been the industry
leader in the light sport aircraft movement within the United States. Over the
past four years, EAA has worked in partnership with the ASTM F37 light sport
Page 298 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
aircraft design consensus standards committee, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and aircraft manufacturers from around the world for the
sole purpose of creating aircraft that are safe to operate in all design and
production standards. EAA is very happy to inform you that this safety goal
has been reached. Discussions with Pete Devaris (Manager, FAA Safety
Analysis Branch, phone 202-267-9628, e-mail: Peter.Devaris@faa.gov) on July
18, 2008 have confirmed that aircraft produced to ASTM F37 standards do not
have a higher level of accidents attributed to design or production issues than
the FAA sees in aircraft produced to type or production certificate standards.
Because of this established and proven equal level of safety, EAA recommends
a new subparagraph (g) be added as the established Paneuropean light sport
aircraft design and production standard.
Proposal 3: Recommend the following wording be adopted as the new
subparagraph/block (d):
"(d) By way of derogation from paragraph (a), an applicant may
elect to use an alternative procedure to demonstrate its capability for ELA 1
certification.
An applicant may seek Agency agreement for the use of ASTM F37
light-sport aircraft consensus standards which sets out the specific
design practices, resources, sequences and quality control of activities
necessary to comply with this Part when the product is an ELA 1
aircraft.
The Agency will accept and approve applicants who meet ASTM F37
light sport aircraft consensus certification standards without meeting
other Agency standards.
The Agency reserves the right to audit the applicant to ensure ASTM
F37 light sport aircraft standards have been met.
Proposal 3: EAA recommends that a stand-alone Paneuropean light-sport
aircraft (LSA) category be established as it offers the greatest opportunity for
promoting aviation within Europe.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 695 comment by: Deutscher Aero Club e.V. (DAeC)
response Accepted
When finalising the wording attention should be taken that the propulsion of
ELA aircraft is not limited to piston engines but also allows electric or other
non-piston type of engines.
The NPA and the proposed Opinion are in line with the comment. Only
presentations were unfortunately incorrect and have been corrected
accordingly.
comment 713 comment by: procomposite
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
Page 299 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart J. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart J, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the design assurance system (21A.239) on the basis of
a valid approval following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration,
but valid positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN
ISO 9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 734 comment by: Oliver
response Noted
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 735 comment by: Oliver
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
Page 300 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
the privileges as defined in Subpart J. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart J, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the design assurance system (21A.239) on the basis of
a valid approval following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration,
but valid positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN
ISO 9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 759 comment by: Air Marugan
response Noted
Comment 9
Comment 2 also valid here
Please see reply to comment No 752.
comment 760 comment by: Air Marugan
response Noted
Comment 10
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart J. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart J, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the design assurance system (21A.239) on the basis of
a valid approval following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration,
but valid positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN
ISO 9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
Page 301 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 773 comment by: Air Marugan
Comment 20
response Accepted
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph".
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that - probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter -
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in ...". The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Existing presentations have been changed.
comment 785 comment by: Herbert HERGET
response Noted
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high,
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft. There is no
connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production quality
system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level of safety
achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience, any rising
of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with additional
safety. As a fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient market
self control, than could be achieved by Agency control. This is the background
for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with the EASA DOA a nd
POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO qualifications of
companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing. In all countries,
where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt aircrafts,
Annex II), it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a reason for
less safety and can even improve safety.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 786 comment by: Herbert HERGET
Negative. The proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough. Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified
aircraft, which we can find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already
have approved quality standards manifesting the design capabilities in
equivalent, but not identical way as r equired by subpart J. Nevertheless these
are fully sufficient to exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart J. So, when
a valid approval exists following the appropriate ASTM stan dard, DIN EN ISO
9001 or 9100, this must be considered equivalent, as long as the company
deals with ELA 1 products only. Proposal: A block (d) must be added, allowing
to reach DOA privileges as defined in Subpart J, but limited to products coming
within ELA 1, when deviating from the relevant paragraphs for the design
assurance system (21A.239) on the basis of a valid approval following the
appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration, but valid positive audit of
accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The approval
will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Page 302 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart B - 21A.35
Flight Tests
comment 5 comment by: Francis Fagegaltier Services
response Accepted
p. 27
Editorial :
(1) the subparagraph (b) is misplaced.
(2) there is no subparagraph (c). Why ? In current 21A.35 it is reserved as well
as subparagraphs (d) and (e) which, contrary to (c), are reproduced here.
The proposal will be corrected.
comment 77 comment by: Dyn'aéro
response Noted
Dyn'Aero soutient ces propositions.
Dyn'Aero supports these proposals.
The Agency thanks you for your support.
comment 281 comment by: Klaus Erger
response Noted
Comment 20
Page 26/27 B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart B
- 21A.14 Demonstration of capability
Approval is given to the engine definition of ELA categories, being „An engine
installed in an aircraft referred to in this paragraph".
This approval is explicitly commented, as there are presentations from EASA in
circulation, that - probably due to historic reasons of the evolving matter -
quote the engines as „piston engines installed in ...". The wording as published
in the NPA is considered as fully suitable.
Thank you for your comment.
The NPA is the reference and the presentations have been corrected.
comment 676 comment by: DGAC France
1a. COMMENT TO :
ü Draft Opinion(s)
Amendment to Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1702/2003 Part 21
1b. AFFECTED PARAGRAPH :
21.A.35,
21.A.163
21.A.353
Page 303 of 446

2. PROPOSED TEXT:
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
- 21A.35 : A line return is missing after « Agency » before the paragraph
(b).
- 21A.163 : delete one « for any »
- 21A.353 : delete one (v)
3. JUSTIFICATION:
These are typos.
response Partially accepted
21A.35 and 21A.353 are corrected.
21A.163(c) is not kept. Refer to comments to that specific paragraph.
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart B - 21A.47
Transferability
comment 6 comment by: Francis Fagegaltier Services
response Noted
p. 27
Apparently some words are missing, because the meaning of "except for
aircraft defined in 21A.14 (c) has sought the Agency agreement" cannot be
determined.
The proposed change to 21A.47 is removed because this paragraph will be
consistent with the proposed amendment to Opinion 03/2009. For more
information also refer to CRD 2008-06 on the EASA website.
comment 55 comment by: John Tempest
response Noted
Guidance material would be useful here to indicate that the TC holder may use
a QE to oversee the requirements for airworthiness.
Please note first that the proposed change to 21A.47 is removed because this
paragraph will be consistent with the proposed amendment to Opinion
03/2009. For more information also refer to CRD 2008-06 on the EASA
website.
Furthermore, the EASA Management Board has not adopted yet the policy on
the use of QE.
comment 77 comment by: Dyn'aéro
response Noted
Dyn'Aero soutient ces propositions.
Dyn'Aero supports these proposals.
The proposed change to 21A.47 is removed because this paragraph will be
consistent with the proposed amendment to Opinion 03/2009. For more
information also refer to CRD 2008-06 on the EASA website.
Page 304 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 95 comment by: René Fournier
response Noted
The modification suggested in this NPA 2008-07 differs from the wording
suggested for this same paragraph in NPA 2008-06. So far, neither wording is
very clear. It should be reviewed in line with the clarification to be made for
paragraphs 21A.14 and 21A.44.
The proposed change to 21A.47 is removed because this paragraph will be
consistent with the proposed amendment to Opinion 03/2009. For more
information also refer to CRD 2008-06 on the EASA website.
comment 530 comment by: Austro Control GmbH
response Noted
21A.47 TC Transfer
Comment:
This is unclear from wording and intent.
See comment 21A.44. A non DOA organisation / person may be competent as
an TC Holder within the ELA 1. A DOA should not be required for a TC Holder of
the ELA1 category!
The continuing airworthiness monitoring may be carried out by any
Organisation (combined approval preferred see comment to Subpart L)
Proposal:
Change proposed text after 21A.14 to "except for ELA1 aircraft."
The proposed change to 21A.47 is removed because this paragraph will be
consistent with the proposed amendment to Opinion 03/2009. For more
information also refer to CRD 2008-06 on the EASA website.
comment 565 comment by: UK CAA
response Noted
21A.47, Page 27;
& 21A.116, Page
28
The highlighted changes do not make sense - are some
words missing from the paragraphs?
The proposed change to 21A.47 is removed because this paragraph will be
consistent with the proposed amendment to Opinion 03/2009. For more
information also refer to CRD 2008-06 on the EASA website.
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart D p. 28
comment 77 comment by: Dyn'aéro
response Noted
Dyn'Aero soutient ces propositions.
Dyn'Aero supports these proposals.
The Agency thanks you for your support.
Page 305 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart D - 21A.96
Standard changes
comment 77 comment by: Dyn'aéro
response Noted
Dyn'Aero soutient ces propositions.
Dyn'Aero supports these proposals.
The Agency thanks the commentator for their support.
comment 147 comment by: ENAC
response Noted
p. 28
Proposed 21A.96 introduces the concept "Standard Changes", this new
classification do not consider the usual classification of minor/major changes
and it seems independent from the aircraft where it is applied.
The change is to a Type Design and in this context it needs to be evaluated,
it is not a theoretical change.
The proposed 21A.96 appears to introduce additional difficulties in the
process.
The Agency agrees that these changes are changes to type design. They are in
principle independent of the aircraft design; however, nothing prevents from
putting limitations when appropriate to apply a specific standard change to
specific design in a similar manner as the US AC-43 does for ski installation
(i.e. the aircraft must be first approved to use skis).
These changes are not limited to minor modifications as the check and balance
will be found in the consultation on the CS.
The standard change will be evaluated through the NPA process.
The first issue of the CS will be based on the US AC that have been used
satisfactorily in the US and also European context as some manufacturers have
already included them in their instructions for continued airworthiness.
comment 197 comment by: Walter Gessky
21A.96 Standard changes
Add the following:
•(a) The standard change constitutes a minor change and is deemed to
be approved by the Agency when it is designed in accordance with the
certification specification mentioned in paragraph (b) and not contrary to TC
holder's data.
Justification:
Standard changes incorporated according to a CS shall not be contrary to TC
holders design data.
Standard changes shall be only minor design changes.
Question:
Production of Parts for standard changes? Is a part 145 organization entitled
to manufacture parts for standard changes?
Require standard changes, where the designed is based on the CS an approval
or can this change be installed by a part 145 or part M subpart F organization
or for non commercial ELA products by a license holder without an approval?
When standard changes are minor changes than the design of the change
Page 306 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
should be automatically approved.
response Partially accepted
The Agency agrees that these changes are changes to type design. They are in
principle independent of the aircraft design; however, nothing prevents from
putting limitations when appropriate to apply a specific standard change to
specific design in a similar manner as the US AC-43 does for ski installation
(i.e. the aircraft must be first approved to use skis).
These changes are not limited to minor modifications as the check and balance
will be found in the consultation on the CS.
The standard change will be evaluated through the NPA process.
The first issue of the CS will be based on the US AC that have been used
satisfactorily in the US and also European context as some manufacturers have
already included them in their instructions for continued airworthiness.
The Agency agrees that the standard change should not be contrary to TC
holder’s data and will modify the text accordingly. The Agency notes that a
comparable provision exists in the US AC.
comment 348 comment by: Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Switzerland
Introduction of standard changes and standard repairs:
The introducing a CS for standard changes and repairs is welcome.
Nevertheless, the extension of its applicability to Major changes raises some
concerns (at least based on the information available in the NPA text).
Considering the level of regulatory oversight envisaged by the NPA, it appears
inadequate to have Major Changes approved solely on the basis of a user's
determination that a certain CS con-tent is "appropriate to the product being
altered, directly applicable to the alteration being made, and not contrary to
manufacturer's data". How these conditions may be satisfied (particularly in
the ELA 1 context) is questionable.
response Partially accepted
The Agency agrees that these changes are changes to type design. They are in
principle independent of the aircraft design; however, nothing prevents from
putting limitations when appropriate to apply a specific standard change to
specific design in a similar manner as the US AC-43 does for ski installation
(i.e. the aircraft must be first approved to use skis).
These changes are not limited to minor modifications as the check and balance
will be found in the consultation on the CS.
The standard change will be evaluated through the NPA process.
The first issue of the CS will be based on the US AC that have been used
satisfactorily in the US and also European context as some manufacturers have
already included them in their instructions for continued airworthiness.
The Agency agrees that the standard change should not be contrary to TC
holder’s data and will modify the text accordingly. The Agency notes that a
comparable provision exists in the US AC.
comment 531 comment by: Austro Control GmbH
21A.96 Standard Changes and 21A.95
Comment
In gereral, a material equivalent to FAA AC 43.13 is highly supported. The NPA
will work for standard changes but the CS for standard changes must be
immediately available.
Page 307 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
To follow the concept of a QE/NAA concept 21A.95 must be changed.
For ELA aircraft, a minor change can not involve safety at all, therefore it is
proposed that minor changes may be approved by the combined organisation
(or DOA or NAA or QE) without involving the Agency.
Proposal
Add to 21A.95
(c) for ELA1 aircraft by an approved organisation (combined or DOA or QE or
NAA)
response Partially accepted
The Agency thanks the commentator for their support and agrees that the CS
should be quickly available.
The standard change is deemed to be approved by the Agency when it is
designed in accordance with the certification specification.
However, the Agency wishes to point out that those changes can only be
approved by the Agency or by an appropriately approved design organisation.
comment 674 comment by: DGAC France
1a. COMMENT TO:
ü Draft Opinion(s)
Amendment to Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1702/2003 Part 21
1b. AFFECTED PARAGRAPH:
21. A.96 and 21.A.436
2. PROPOSED TEXT:
Bien que la DGAC France soit d'accord sur le principe des modifications et
réparations standard, utiliser la terminologie « spécifications de certification »
semble surprenant. Les CS donnent habituellement des exigences
réglementaires, pas un ensemble de dossiers de conception déjà approuvés.
Ne pourrait on avoir une autre appellation ?
Néanmoins, le contenu des ces documents est de toute importance afin d'en
évaluer les bienfaits simplificateurs des processus d'approbation de
modification ou réparation. Une tâche réglementaire définissant ces CS devrait
être inscrit au programme de travail de l'AESA et la DGAC recommande un
groupe de travail impliquant l'industrie et les autorités pour faire avancer ce
sujet.
Par ailleurs, la DGAC demande à l'agence de préciser que l'utilisation concrète
au cas par cas de ces « CS » sera documenté de manière adéquate, en
particulier pour permettre à un organisme CAMO de suivre l'état de navigabilité
des aéronefs qu'il gère.
Courtesy translation:
Although DGAC France agrees on the principle of standard repairs and
modifications, the use of the terminology of certification specification is a bit
surprising. The CS usually gives airworthiness rules, not already approved
airworthiness data. Can't there be another name?
Nevertheless, those document contents are important and shall be carefully
written in order to optimize the benefits for leisure aviation in terms of repairs
and modifications approvals. A rulemaking task shall be added to the EASA
work programme and DGAC France suggests that a group of industry and NAA
representatives shall be in charge of this task.
Page 308 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
In addition, DGAC France asks EASA to clarify that the day by day use of this
"CS" will be documented adequately, in particular to make sure a CAMO will be
able to assess the continued airworthiness of the aircraft it manages.
response Partially accepted
The Agency agrees that present CS are airworthiness codes. However, the
words certification specifications are broad enough to cover the present case.
The important issue is that such CS are issued and updated using the normal
rulemaking process allowing stakeholders and NAA to express their views. The
Agency does not exclude the possibility to set up groups for the update of the
CS if the technological progress would make it advisable.
The CS cover the design aspects of the change or repairs. The installation of
such changes or repairs will be done in accordance with Part-M.
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart E p. 28
comment 77 comment by: Dyn'aéro
response Noted
Dyn'Aero soutient ces propositions.
Dyn'Aero supports these proposals.
The Agency thanks the commentator for their support
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart E -
21A.112B Demontstration of capability
comment 58 comment by: John Tempest
response Noted
21A.112B (c)
p. 28
Guidance material is required here as to the role of the QE. Although the
applicant may submit a Certification Plan to EASA, it is presumed that part of
the Certification Plan would need to identify the NAA or QE to be used to
confirm compliance.
Attachment 2 for ELA 1 makes it clear that confirmation of compliance with the
requirements will be necessary for ELA 1 (and of course ELA-2 will be subject
to normal DOA procedures). However, this paragraph as-writted does not
make it clear that compliance verification by NAA or QE is a requirement.
This is an important point to highlight because for the FAA/ASTM LSA rules and
standards, compliance verification is left in the hands of the
designer/manufacturer - no external validation is required. The FAA approach
places responsibility directly in the hands of the manufacturer. However, I do
not believe that this is the intention of this NPA.
The EASA Management Board has not adopted yet the policy on the use of QE.
comment 77 comment by: Dyn'aéro
Page 309 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Dyn'Aero soutient ces propositions.
Dyn'Aero supports these proposals.
The Agency thanks the commentator for their support.
comment 148 comment by: ENAC
response Noted
The acceptance of change approved by owner/manufacturer without any
recognised privileges to carry out this approval, appears in contrast with the
spirit of Part 21.
The text proposed by the Agency does not imply approval by the owner or
manufacturer. The STC is still approved by the Agency. The proposed change is
related to the demonstration of capability: it is achieved here by the approval
of the certification programme by the Agency.
comment 150 comment by: ENAC
It could be difficult manage the matter, it is not in fact understood when on
what basis, for the applicant it is to be decided to apply for ELA or for standard
process and which limitations or privileges for the TC holder or for the owner
are associated with the type certification and individual airworthiness
certification in case of ELA process or normal process.
The proposal NPA does not provide any indications.
Will the C of A indicate that it applies to ELA category aircraft?
It is not clear the position of the Agency in respect to ICAO Annexes.
Will the envisioned C of A be issued according to ICAO Annex 8?
response Not accepted
Although called derogation for legal reasons, the proposal remains a normal
process in Part-21. There is no reason therefore to make a special mention on
the STC or the Cof A of the aircraft which remain ICAO Annex 8.
comment 334 comment by: Luftfahrt-Bundesamt
Same comment as to 21A.14
We propose the following change to 21A.112B c):
(c) By way of derogation from paragraph (a) and (b), an applicant may elect
for compliance demonstration the verification by the Agency for an STC on an
aircraft, engine and propellers defined in paragraph 21A.14 (c):
response Not accepted
The proposal does not contain a demonstration of capability of the appplicant.
This approach would put all the burden of demonstration of compliance on the
Agency which would lead to confused responsibilities and increase the liability
of the Agency.
comment 533 comment by: Austro Control GmbH
Page 310 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Subpart E STC
Comments
The same comments as for TC applies also to STC. A DOA should not be
required for STCs on ELA1.
Proposal
Amend as required.
The text of the NPA is consistent with the comment. The DOA is not mandatory
for ELA 1 (aircraft referrred to in Paragraph 21A.14 (c)).
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart E - 21A.116
Transferability
comment 7 comment by: Francis Fagegaltier Services
response Accepted
p. 28
Apparently some words are missing, because the meaning of "except for
aircraft defined in 21A.14 (c) has sought the Agency agreement" cannot be
determined.
This comment has highlighted an oversight in the CRD Part I. The same issue
but for TC was deemed covered by the change introduced by Opinion 03/2009
and therefore the proposal made for paragraph 21A.047 in this NPA has been
withdrawn. The wording used here creates the same difficulties as commented
on 21A.047 and should therefore be changed to be consistent with the wording
proposed by Opinion 03/2009. This omission is covered by this CRD.
comment 60 comment by: John Tempest
response Noted
Guidance material would be useful here to indicate that the TC holder may use
a QE to oversee the requirements for airworthiness.
The EASA Management Board has not adopted yet the policy for the use of
Qualified Entities.
comment 77 comment by: Dyn'aéro
response Noted
Dyn'Aero soutient ces propositions.
Dyn'Aero supports these proposals.
The Agency thanks the commentator for their support. Please note however
that the text will be changed but the intent will be kept.
comment 97 comment by: René Fournier
The modification suggested in this NPA 2008-07 differs from the wording
suggested for this same paragraph in NPA 2008-06. So far, neither wording is
very clear. It should be reviewed in line with the clarification to be made for
paragraphs 21A.14 and 21A.44.
Page 311 of 446

esponse Noted
resulting
text
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
This comment has highlighted an oversight in the CRD Part I. The same issue
but for TC was deemed covered by the change introduced by Opinion 03/2009
and therefore the proposal made for paragraph 21A.047 in this NPA has been
withdrawn. The wording used here creates the same difficulties as commented
on 21A.047 and should therefore be changed to be consistent with the wording
proposed by Opinion 03/2009. This omission is covered by this CRD.
A supplemental type-certificate shall only be transferred to a natural or legal
person that is able to undertake the obligations of 21A.118A and for this
purpose has demonstrated its ability to qualify under the criteria of 21A.112B
or seek the Agency’s agreement for the use of procedures setting out its
activities to undertake these obligations for aircraft defined in 21A.14(c).
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart G - 21A.139
Quality System
p. 28-30
comment 8 comment by: Francis Fagegaltier Services
response Accepted
In the new subparagraph (c), in (c)(1)(i) there is reference to a "scope of
approval". With regard to the subject which is "system for organisational
review", there is some ambiguity. It might be clearer to specify "scope of
production organisation approval".
The concept of organisational reviews has been deleted following the
comments received.
comment 82 comment by: Apex Aircraft
response Noted
Le 21A.139c) se réfère aux avions définis dans les paragraphes 21A.14b) et c).
On retrouve là l'idée de catégories d'avions de moins de 1000 kg et de moins
de 2000kg. La notion de "nouveau process" (ELA) semble oubliée au profit
d'une nouvelle catégorie d'avion.
The Agency confirms that the ELA is a new process as it affects Part-21. There
is a need to define the aircraft to which the process is applicable and therefore
could be interpreted as categories.
comment 116 comment by: Ultraleicht-Flugverein Saar-Pfalz e.V.
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high,
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
Page 312 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As a fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, than could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries, where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II), it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 117 comment by: Ultraleicht-Flugverein Saar-Pfalz e.V.
response Noted
Negative. The proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, which we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to
exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart G. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, as long as the company deals with ELA 1 products only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart K, but limited to products coming within ELA 1, when deviating from
the relevant paragraphs for the Quality System (21A.139 (a) (b) or (c)) on the
basis of a valid approval following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid
positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO
9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 154 comment by: ENAC
response Accepted
It is not clear the benefit of the replacement of quality system with an
organisational review. It remains in the obligations of the organisation to
assess the conformity of the aircraft to the type design.
Is the envisioned organisation able to state the conformity in a way acceptable
to the Authgority?
Are the requirements of the Reg. 216/2008 still satisfied?
The concept of organisational review has been deleted following the comments
received.
Page 313 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 174 comment by: Alexander Eich
response Noted
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to
exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart G. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart K, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the Quality System (21A.139 (a) (b) or (c)) on the
basis of a valid approval following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid
positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO
9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 180 comment by: Ingmar Hedblom
The concept of not requiring a Quality system for production of ELA aircraft is
supported since it is advantageous for small organisations.
However, the term "organisational review system" as used in draft proposal
for 21A.139(c) is more defining a traditional production control system working
on a continous basis. The term has here a different meaning compared to its
use for maintenance organisations as now proposed in EASA Opinion 02-2008
amending regulation 2042/2003. In M.A.712, organisational reviews are
something that is performed on a regular basis and not a daily activity. This
different meaning of organisational reviews in two EASA regulations is
confusing.
It is therefore suggested that the wording of 21A.139(c) should be "By
derogation to....the quality system may be replaced by a Production Control
System and the organisation shall demonstrate that it has established and is
able to maintain a Production Control System......
Corresponding changes in 21A.361.
response Not accepted
The concept of organisational reviews has been deleted following the
comments received.
comment 198 comment by: Walter Gessky
21A.139 ( c )
Add after the last sentence:
The Production organization review system should be described in the
Page 314 of 446

esponse Accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
exposition.
(c)(1)
Delete this part of paragraph(c).
Justification:
This is completely misleading and the so called Production Organisation review
has the same content as the quality system.
It is sufficient when the organisation is required to describe the review system
in the exposition.
The concept of organisational reviews has been deleted following the
comments received.
comment 245 comment by: Ronald MEYER
response Noted
Comment 6
Page 28 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart G - 21A.139 Quality System
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high,
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As a fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, than could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries, where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II), it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 246 comment by: Ronald MEYER
Comment 7
Page 28 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart G - 21A.139 Quality System
Negative. The proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, which we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
Page 315 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to
exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart G. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, as long as the company deals with ELA 1 products only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart K, but limited to products coming within ELA 1, when deviating from
the relevant paragraphs for the Quality System (21A.139 (a) (b) or (c)) on the
basis of a valid approval following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid
positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO
9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 256 comment by: Gorden WIEGELS
response Noted
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 263 comment by: Gorden WIEGELS
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to
exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart G. So, when a valid approval
Page 316 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart K, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the Quality System (21A.139 (a) (b) or (c)) on the
basis of a valid approval following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid
positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO
9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 297 comment by: Karg
response Noted
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights -
mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world - in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are already flying (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II), it is proven that deregulation in general is not reason for
less safety, much more it can even improve safety.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 298 comment by: Karg
Page 30 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart G - 21A.139 Quality System
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to
Page 317 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart G. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart K, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the Quality System (21A.139 (a) (b) or (c)) on the
basis of a valid approval following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid
positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO
9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 319 comment by: TECNAM
response Noted
Comment 2 also valid here
Please see reply to comment No 308.
comment 320 comment by: TECNAM
response Noted
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to
exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart G. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart K, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the Quality System (21A.139 (a) (b) or (c)) on the
basis of a valid approval following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid
positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO
9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 338 comment by: Luftfahrt-Bundesamt
Topic: 21A.139 Quality system - Subparagraph (c)
Page 318 of 446

esponse Accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Concern:
What is the difference between the quality system and the "Production
Organisational review"? Further explanation required to define this kind of
review. What are the benefits for the organisations establishing a review
system instead of a quality system as the addressed subjects and elements are
in principle the same?
The concept of organisational reviews has been deleted following the
comments received.
comment 362 comment by: O. Reinhardt / Flightdesign
response Noted
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
This comment is also valid for several other locations as linked, and for the
Who does what- Table, there section "organisational approval" (not possible to
link exactly)
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 370 comment by: O. Reinhardt / Flightdesign
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to
exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart G. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Page 319 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart K, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the Quality System (21A.139 (a) (b) or (c)) on the
basis of a valid approval following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid
positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO
9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 386 comment by: Thomas Wendt
response Noted
Comment 12
Page 30 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart G - 21A.139 Quality System
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to
exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart G. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart K, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the Quality System (21A.139 (a) (b) or (c)) on the
basis of a valid approval following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid
positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO
9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 400 comment by: Flight Design GmbH Matthias Betsch CEO
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
Page 320 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 424 comment by: Flight Design GmbH Matthias Betsch CEO
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to
exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart G. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart K, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the Quality System (21A.139 (a) (b) or (c)) on the
basis of a valid approval following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid
positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO
9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Partially accepted
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production
comment 472 comment by: Tegelbeckers
Comment 11
Page 30 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart G -
21A.139 Quality System
Comment 2 also valid here
Comment 12
Page 30 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart G -
21A.139 Quality System
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
Page 321 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
identical way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to
exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart G. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart K, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the Quality System (21A.139 (a) (b) or (c)) on the
basis of a valid approval following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid
positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO
9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Comment 13
Page 30 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart K -
21A.307 Release of parts and appliances for installation
Enhance (c) so that for all commercial usage it is possible to install parts
without explicit Form 1 only when they come with a release certificate from the
aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released parts must not
have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft manufacturer, but they
must undergo the same quality inspection process that this specific part
undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft manufacturer upon
initial installation.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 493 comment by: light-wings Oliver Liedmann
response Noted
Comment 2 also valid here.
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to
exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart G. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart K, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the Quality System (21A.139 (a) (b) or (c)) on the
basis of a valid approval following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid
positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO
9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
Page 322 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 511 comment by: aeroklaus
response Noted
Comment 11
Page 30 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart G -
21A.139 Quality System
Comment 2 also valid here
Please see reply to comment No 502.
comment 512 comment by: aeroklaus
response Noted
Comment 12
Page 30 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart G -
21A.139 Quality System
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to
exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart G. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart K, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the Quality System (21A.139 (a) (b) or (c)) on the
basis of a valid approval following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid
positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO
9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 534 comment by: CAA CZ
response Accepted
Editorial change only: (c)(ii): Please delete following text:
... referred to in sub-paragraph 21A.145(c)(2) [Approval Requirements] and
ultimately to the manager referred to in sub-paragraph 21A.145(c)(1) ...
See 21A.139(b)(2).
The Agency will consider the editorial change.
comment 542 comment by: Austro Control GmbH
21A139(c)
Page 323 of 446

esponse Accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Delete this paragraph. It is completey misleading. The so called production
organisation review has the same content as the quality system and there is no
difference.
The concept of organisational reviews has been deleted following the
comments received.
comment 566 comment by: UK CAA
response Noted
21A.139(b) and (c) 21A.139(c)(1) states that "The control procedures need to
include specific provisions for any life-limited parts". This is
more demanding than 21A.139(b)(1), which refers to
"critical parts". Is this intended?
The concept of organisational reviews has been deleted following the comments
received.
comment 591 comment by: klaus M
response Noted
Comment 11
Page 30 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart G -
21A.139 Quality System
Comment 2 also valid here
Please see reply to comment No 582.
comment 592 comment by: klaus M
response Noted
Comment 12
Page 30 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart G -
21A.139 Quality System
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to
exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart G. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart K, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the Quality System (21A.139 (a) (b) or (c)) on the
basis of a valid approval following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid
positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO
9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Page 324 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 620 comment by: Cessna Aircraft Company
response Noted
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to
exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart G. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, as long as the company deals with ELA 1 products only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart K, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the Quality System (21A.139 (a) (b) or (c)) on the
basis of a valid approval following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid
positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO
9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 636 comment by: Martin Josef Warken
response Noted
Comment 11
Page 30 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart G - 21A.139 Quality System
Comment 2 also valid here
Please see reply to comment No 628.
comment 637 comment by: Martin Josef Warken
Comment 12
Page 30 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart G - 21A.139 Quality System
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to
exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart G. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
Page 325 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart K, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the Quality System (21A.139 (a) (b) or (c)) on the
basis of a valid approval following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid
positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO
9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 714 comment by: procomposite
And again:
response Noted
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 736 comment by: Oliver
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
Page 326 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 737 comment by: Oliver
response Noted
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to
exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart G. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart K, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the Quality System (21A.139 (a) (b) or (c)) on the
basis of a valid approval following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid
positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO
9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 761 comment by: Air Marugan
response Noted
Comment 11
Comment 2 also valid here
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 2.
comment 762 comment by: Air Marugan
Comment 12
Page 327 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to
exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart G. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart K, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the Quality System (21A.139 (a) (b) or (c)) on the
basis of a valid approval following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid
positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO
9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production
comment 787 comment by: Herbert HERGET
response Noted
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high,
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft. =0 D There is no
connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production quality
system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level of safety
achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience, any rising
of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with additional
safety. As a fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient market
self control, than could be achieved by Agency control. This is the background
for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with the EASA DOA and
POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO qualifications of
companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing. In all countries,
where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt aircrafts,
Annex II), it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not20a reason for
less safety and can even improve safety.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
comment 788 comment by: Herbert HERGET
Negative. The proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough. Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified
aircraft, which we can find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already
have approved quality standards manifesting the production capabilities in
equivalent, but not identical way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these
Page 328 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
are fully sufficient to exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart G. So, when
a valid approval exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this
must be considered equivalent, as long as the company deals with ELA 1
products only. Proposal: A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach POA
privileges as defined20in Subpart K, but limited to products coming within ELA
1, when deviating from the relevant paragraphs for the Quality System
(21A.139 (a) (b) or (c)) on the basis of a valid approval following ASTM F2279
(no self declaration, but valid positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN
ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The approval will be accepted without further
auditing or checking.
Refer to CRD Part I paragraph (b) 3 and 4 relative to demonstration of
capability for design and production.
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart G - 21A.163
Privileges
comment 9 comment by: Francis Fagegaltier Services
response Noted
Editorial : "for any" is duplicated.
p. 30
Thank you for spotting the mistake; however, the concept of organisational
reviews is not retained. This proposal is withdrawn. For more explanations
please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
comment 77 comment by: Dyn'aéro
response Noted
Dyn'Aero soutient ces propositions.
Dyn'Aero supports these proposals.
The concept of organisational reviews is not retained. This proposal is
withdrawn. For more explanations please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
comment 101 comment by: European Sailplane Manufacturers
The European sailplane manufacturers clearly share the view of EASA of this
changed wording for 21A.163 (e).
The new included privilege for ELA 2 (21A.14(c) aircraft) to maintain and repair
products which this manufacturer has produced eliminates the burden of a
seperate Part-M organisation approval as Subpart F organisation.
Nevertheless the manufacturers think that additionally the previlege to conduct
the airworthiness reviews and to issue the regarding ARC should also be
possible for ELA 1 manufacturers.
This would eliminate the need to apply for an Subpart G organisation according
to Part-M and would perfectly be in-line with the aim of this NPA 2008-07.
Furthermoer it would be in-line with still existing national rules which also
allowed exactly this privilege.
Page 329 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
An last but not least a manufacturer and TC holder definitely has the
experience, capability and means to conduct the reviews and issue the ARC.
The concept of organisational reviews is not retained. This proposal is
withdrawn. For more explanations please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
comment 158 comment by: ENAC
response Noted
The NPA considers to give privileges to simplified design or/and production
organisation. It appears not consistent with Reg. 216/2008 art. 5.2 (e) and
Part 21 where the privileges are given in case of proven organisational
capabilities (this NPA gives the privileges without any evaluation).
The concept of organisational reviews is not retained. This proposal is
withdrawn. For more explanations please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
comment 199 comment by: Walter Gessky
21A.163
response Noted
Editorial:
For any For any product
Thank you for spotting the mistake; however, the concept of organisational
reviews is not retained. This proposal is withdrawn. For more explanations
please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
comment 278 comment by: Klaus Erger
Comment 11
Page 30 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart G -
21A.139 Quality System
Comment 2 also valid here
Comment 12
Page 30 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart G -
21A.139 Quality System
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to
exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart G. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Page 330 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart K, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the Quality System (21A.139 (a) (b) or (c)) on the
basis of a valid approval following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid
positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO
9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Comment 13
Page 30 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart K -
21A.307 Release of parts and appliances for installation
Enhance (c) so that for all commercial usage it is possible to install parts
without explicit Form 1 only when they come with a release certificate from the
aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released parts must not
have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft manufacturer, but they
must undergo the same quality inspection process that this specific part
undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft manufacturer upon
initial installation.
The concept of organisational reviews is not retained. This proposal is
withdrawn. For more explanations please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
comment 336 comment by: Luftfahrt-Bundesamt
response Noted
Topic: Production privileges according to 21A.163 versus 21A.383
Concern:
21A.383 e) gives the following maintenance privilege to a combined design and
production organisation according to Part 21 Subpart L:
"Repair and overhauls products, parts or appliances which are included in its
scope of approval and issue an Authorised Release Certificate (EASA Form 1) in
respect of that maintenance"
For production organisations under Subpart G such complex maintenance
privilege is not granted. 21A.163 e) refers just to products under 21A.14(c)
(ELA1). Finally it does not include parts and activities on ELA2 -products.
Is there any justification for these differences between the subpart G and L of
Part 21?
The concept of organisational reviews is not retained. This proposal is
withdrawn. For more explanations please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
comment 359 comment by: Aero-Club of Switzerland
response Noted
Please delete one of the two "for any".
Thank you for spotting the mistake; however, the concept of organisational
reviews is not retained. This proposal is withdrawn. For more explanations
please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
Page 331 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 532 comment by: CAA CZ
response Noted
Editorial change only: Please renumber the propsed subparagraph to (f).
Subpara (e) is already used in the current text of the regulation.
Thank you for spotting the mistake; however, the concept of organisational
reviews is not retained. This proposal is withdrawn. For more explanations
please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
comment 543 comment by: Austro Control GmbH
response Noted
21A.163
Typo in first sentence.
Change paragraph to:
"For any for any product ..."
The concept of organisational reviews is not retained. This proposal is
withdrawn. For more explanations please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
comment 567 comment by: UK CAA
response Noted
21A.163(e) 21A.163(e) should include components in the same way
that these are included in 21A.383(e).
Suggested text
For any product referred to in 21A.14(c), maintain and
repair the product or associated parts & appliances that
they have produced and issue a certificate of release to
service (EASA Form 53 or EASA Form 1 as appropriate) in
respect of that maintenance.
The concept of organisational reviews is not retained. This proposal is
withdrawn. For more explanations please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
comment 568 comment by: UK CAA
21A.163 and
21A.383; parts
release.
If components are to be released following maintenance by
a production organisation the instructions for the EASA
Form 1 will need to be amended in Part 21 to cater for
maintenance release using the right-hand side of the form.
The privileges being proposed in this Opinion include those
that are available to Part M and Part 145 organisations, and
the holders of part 66 licences. But the proposal does not
specify compliance with the relevant Part M/145/66
requirements. This does not provide an appropriate level of
regulation and may be unfair to the existing holders of
those approvals and licences. If these privileges are to be
given then the relevant requirements of Part M Subpart F
Page 332 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
should be applied: i.e.- M.A.605(c); M.A.606(g); M.A.607;
M.A.608(a); M.A.609; M.A.610; M.A.611; M.A.612;
M.A.613; M.A.614; M.A.615.
The concept of organisational reviews is not retained. This proposal is
withdrawn. For more explanations please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
comment 663 comment by: European Sailplane Manufacturers
response Noted
Typo mistake:
"for any" has been written twice
Thank you for spotting the mistake; however, the concept of organisational
reviews is not retained. This proposal is withdrawn. For more explanations
please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
comment 677 comment by: DGAC France
response Noted
1a. COMMENT TO :
ü Draft Opinion(s)
Amendment to Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1702/2003 Part 21
1b. AFFECTED PARAGRAPH :
21.A.35,
21.A.163
21.A.353
2. PROPOSED TEXT:
- 21A.35 : A line return is missing after « Agency » before the paragraph
(b).
- 21A.163 : delete one « for any »
- 21A.353 : delete one (v)
3. JUSTIFICATION:
These are typos.
The concept of organisational reviews is not retained. This proposal is
withdrawn. For more explanations please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
comment 698 comment by: Evektor
response Noted
EVEKTOR position:
typist's error- twice "for any"
Thank you for spotting the mistake; however, the concept of organisational
reviews is not retained. This proposal is withdrawn. For more explanations
please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
Page 333 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart K - 21A.307
Release of parts and appliances for installation
comment 22 comment by: FFVV
response Noted
p. 30
La FFVV apprécie et approuve la possibilité offerte de limiter le formalisme des
FORM 1 pour les pièces détachées des ELA1 et propose que :
L'approbation de la conception des pièces peut être faite par les organismes
disposant d'un manuel approuvé de Procédure Alternarive à l'Organisme de
Conception - ( comme c'est le cas pour la FFVV.)
The Agency thanks you for your support.
There have been many comments on this proposal and the text has been
changed: for an explanation of the changes please see CRD Part I paragraph 7
and the resulting text attached to CRD Part I.
comment 61 comment by: John Tempest
response Noted
Clarification may be required here if the definition of non-commercial operation
includes flying training or hire by members of a member's aero club.
There have been many comments on this proposal and the text has been
changed: for an explanation of the changes please see CRD Part I paragraph 7
and the resulting text attached to CRD Part I. The reference to
commercial/non-commercial is not necessary anymore due to the changed
text.
comment 77 comment by: Dyn'aéro
response Noted
Dyn'Aero soutient ces propositions.
Dyn'Aero supports these proposals.
The Agency thanks you for your support.
There have been many comments on this proposal and the text has been
changed: for an explanation of the changes please see CRD Part I paragraph 7
and the resulting text attached to CRD Part I.
comment 96 comment by: René Fournier
The proposed wording for the new subparagraphs (b) and (c) should be
revised.
In the two subparagraphs, the expression "complying with one of the criteria
of" is imprecise. So as to eliminate ambiguity and ensure consistency with the
wording proposed for 21A.39 (c), it would be advisable to use instead the
words "defined by".
In line with my comments on the Explanatory Note, please also allow me to
also suggest to replace in both subparagraphs concerned the proposed words
Page 334 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
"produced in conformity with an approved design under the responsibility of
the aircraft owner when installed in his aircraft" by the following wording:
"produced in conformity with an approved design and installed on an aircraft
under the responsibility of the aircraft owner".
Last but not least, to make all the provisions consistent, a reference to
21A.307 should be added in 21A.130 (a). Likewise, a reference to Part 21
should be added in MA.501 (a), as suggested in the Draft Commission
Regulation attached to Opinion 2/2008.
response Partially accepted
There have been many comments on this proposal and the text has been
changed: for an explanation of the changes please see CRD Part I paragraph 7
and the resulting text attached to the CRD Part I.
The first change proposed by the commentator is accepted.
The second one is not accepted as in this case many aircraft would be outside
the control of the owner. The control of the owner (installed on their own
aircraft) is an important element of the proposal.
comment 118 comment by: Ultraleicht-Flugverein Saar-Pfalz e.V.
Enhance (c) so that for all commercial usage it is possible to install parts
without explicit Form 1 only when they come with a release certificate from the
aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released parts must not
have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft manufacturer, but they
must undergo the same quality inspection process that this specific part
undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft manufacturer upon
initial installation.
response Not accepted
There have been many comments on this proposal and the text has been
changed: for an explanation of the changes please see CRD Part I paragraph 7
and the resulting text attached to CRD Part I.
The proposal made by the commentator would give an advantage to original
manufacturers. The Agency believes that the changed text attached to the CRD
Part I gives an appropriate balance and provides more flexibility.
comment 149 comment by: Apex Aircraft
response Noted
21A.307
Le propriétaire d'un aéronef pourra installer sous sa propre responsabilité
certaines pièces sur son aéronef sous la condition que la pièce soit conforme à
une définition approuvée.
Comment pourra-t-il juger que la pièce en sa possession est conforme à une
définition approuvée?
Il aura accès comme tout le monde à l'aspect dimensionnel de la définition,
mais qu'en est-il des autres aspects de la définition (les définitions de
matières, de traitements thermiques, de traitement de surface, voire parfois
des données de process...).
Cette nouvelle disposition ne change donc pas grand chose.
Page 335 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
There have been many comments on this proposal and the text has been
changed: for an explanation of the changes please see CRD Part I paragraph 7
and the resulting text attached to the CRD Part I.
Approved design means in accordance with Part-21. The benefit is not on
design approval but on the production release aspects.
comment 155 comment by: ENAC
response Noted
It is not clear what this the scope to permit the owner or everybody to install
part produced in conformity to any approved design data and without any
production organisational approval (Form 1).
Is the approved design approved under STC process by EASA?
Has the use of this process an impact on the C. of A.?
Will the C. of A. be converted in PtF or R. CoA?
It seems not consistent with Reg. 216/2008 art. 5.2(c).
The possibility the US owner / operators have to produce their own parts is
mainly related to old and orphan aircraft for which it is difficult to find
replacement parts and for which a PtF is envisioned.
It seems on the basis of question 1 sentence that the par. 21A.307 is
applicable for non commercial use of aircraft.
There have been many comments on this proposal and the text has been
changed: for an explanation of the changes please see CRD Part I paragraph 7
and the resulting text attached to the CRD Part I.
The design will continue to be approved in accordance with Part-21. This is
consistent with the quoted paragraph of the Basic Regulation.
There is also no reason that the C of A should be affected.
The changed text has made the discussion commercial/non-commercial not
necessary.
comment 156 comment by: ENAC
response Noted
In the case the installation is not considered a replacement should be dealt
according to the design change procedure.
Who is responsible to identify and approve the critical parts?
Who control the process?
There have been many comments on this proposal and the text has been
changed: for an explanation of the changes please see CRD Part I paragraph 7
and the resulting text attached to CRD Part I.
The design should be approved in accordance with Part-21.
The definition of life-limited parts is done by the designer during the
certification process.
comment 173 comment by: Apex Aircraft
21 A.307c)
Il ressort de ce paragraphe que sur certains aéronefs certifiés, de moins de
1000 kg (process ELA1), il serait possible de changer un longeron, une voilure,
etc ... sans EASA form1. Il appartiendra au propriétaire de vérifier la
conformité de la pièce à une définition approuvée (celle du détenteur du TC?,
mais comment la possèderait-il?).
Page 336 of 446

esponse Accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Le chapitre ne donne aucun élément sur la nécessité de vérifier la navigabilité
de la pièce!
Le détenteur du TC devra-t-il cependant continuer à assurer le suivi de
navigabilité pour un TC dont il ignore tout de la navigabilité des pièces utilisées
sur la flotte en service ?
There have been many comments on this proposal and the text has been
changed: for an explanation of the changes please see CRD Part I paragraph 7
and the resulting text attached to the CRD Part I.
The concern expressed is understood and the changed text has produced a
better balance.
comment 175 comment by: Alexander Eich
Enhance (c) so that for all commercial usage it is possible to install parts
without explicit Form 1 only when they come with a release certificate from the
aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released parts must not
have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft manufacturer, but they
must undergo the same quality inspection process that this specific part
undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft manufacturer upon
initial installation.
response Not accepted
There have been many comments on this proposal and the text has been
changed: for an explanation of the changes please see CRD Part I paragraph 7
and the resulting text attached to CRD Part I.
The proposal made by the commentator would give an advantage to original
manufacturers. The Agency believes that the changed text attached to CRD
Part I gives an appropriate balance and provides more flexibility.
comment 200 comment by: Walter Gessky
Subpart K, 21A.307
Add to (b) and (c)
(b) in the case of aircraft complying with one of the criteria of 21A.14(b), and
except for engines, propellers, life limited parts and appliances, TSO parts,
parts of the primary structure and parts of the flight controls, produced in
conformity with an approved design under the responsibility of the aircraft
owner when installed in his aircraft; or
(c) in the case of aircraft complying with one of the criteria of 21A.14(c),
except for engines and propellers and TSO parts, produced in conformity
with an approved design under the responsibility of the aircraft owner when
installed in his aircraft; and
Comment:
The proposal is generally acceptable, but for products like engine and propeller
and some parts like altimeter, airspeed indicator, certain NAV equipment a
minimum technical standard is essential for safety, and as long as this aircraft
flying in the same airspace, a minimum technical standard must be
guaranteed.
response Not accepted
There have been many comments on this proposal and the text has been
Page 337 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
changed: for an explanation of the changes please see CRD Part I paragraph 7
and the resulting text attached to the CRD Part I.
Engine and propellers are products, not parts and appliances. The affected
paragraph is related to parts and appliances.
Concerning ETSO, the rationale put forward by the commentator is that a
minimum standard must be retained. The proposal from the Agency still
requires an approved design in accordance with Part 21. The alleviation is only
on the production release.
comment 264 comment by: Gorden WIEGELS
Enhance (c) so that for all commercial usage it is possible to install parts
without explicit Form 1 only when they come with a release certificate from the
aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released parts must not
have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft manufacturer, but they
must undergo the same quality inspection process that this specific part
undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft manufacturer upon
initial installation.
response Not accepted
There have been many comments on this proposal and the text has been
changed: for an explanation of the changes please see CRD Part I paragraph 7
and the resulting text attached to CRD Part I.
The proposal made by the commentator would give an advantage to original
manufacturers. The Agency believes that the changed text attached to CRD
Part I gives an appropriate balance and provides more flexibility.
comment 299 comment by: Karg
Enhance (c) so that for all commercial usage it is possible to install parts
without explicit Form 1 only when they come with a release certificate from the
aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released parts must not
have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft manufacturer, but they
must undergo the same quality inspection process that this specific part
undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft manufacturer upon
initial installation.
response Not accepted
There have been many comments on this proposal and the text has been
changed: for an explanation of the changes please see CRD Part I paragraph 7
and the resulting text attached to CRD Part I.
The proposal made by the commentator would give an advantage to original
manufacturers. The Agency believes that the changed text attached to CRD
Part I gives an appropriate balance and provides more flexibility.
comment 321 comment by: TECNAM
Enhance (c) so that for all commercial usage it is possible to install parts
without explicit Form 1 only when they come with a release certificate from the
aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released parts must not
have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft manufacturer, but they
must undergo the same quality inspection process that this specific part
undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft manufacturer upon
initial installation.
Page 338 of 446

esponse Not accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
There have been many comments on this proposal and the text has been
changed: for an explanation of the changes please see CRD Part I paragraph 7
and the resulting text attached to CRD Part I.
The proposal made by the commentator would give an advantage to original
manufacturers. The Agency believes that the changed text attached to CRD
Part I gives an appropriate balance and provides more flexibility.
comment 335 comment by: Luftfahrt-Bundesamt
response Noted
Topic: „Limiting the number of parts that need a Form 1" (see
introduction and 21A.307 (b) and (c))
Concerns:
- In general we do not support the proposed idea to grant exemptions from the
requirements of a Form 1 for a part. This exemption might generate a lot of
confusion and we see no benefit for the safety.
- It is not clear, through what kind of information these exemptions are easily
accessible to the aircraft owner. If it is really necessary to grant these
exemptions, we would recommend a document approved/issued by the design
holder of the product which clearly identifies the forms required for the
different types of parts (Standard part / Life limited part/ parts which may be
produced by the end user or owner). If such a document is not available, who
takes the decision that whether a part might be produced by the owner or
not?
- Is there any kind of certificate/statement required from the aircraft owner
that his produced part complies with the approved design?
- The owner might just own the aircraft and not operate the aircraft. Therefore
it might be useful to give the privilege/responsibility for the installation of part
without a Form 1 to the operator of the aircraft instead of the owner.
- What about parts for appliances. Somebody may read the rule in a way, that
they are not exempted from the privileges given through 21A.307 (b) and (c).
If appliances are excluded this should also apply to parts thereof.
There have been many comments on this proposal and the text has been
changed: for an explanation of the changes please see CRD Part I paragraph 7
and the resulting text attached to CRD Part I.
The rule defines only the main principles. The Agency agrees that more details
need to be provided in an AMC. This is planned by task MDM.032 (d) that is
due to finish in 2013.
comment 371 comment by: O. Reinhardt / Flightdesign
Enhance (c) so that for all commercial usage it is possible to install parts
without explicit Form 1 only when they come with a release certificate from the
aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released parts must not
have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft manufacturer, but they
must undergo the same quality inspection process that this specific part
undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft manufacturer upon
initial installation.
response Not accepted
There have been many comments on this proposal and the text has been
Page 339 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
changed: for an explanation of the changes please see CRD Part I paragraph 7
and the resulting text attached to CRD Part I.
The proposal made by the commentator would give an advantage to original
manufacturers. The Agency believes that the changed text attached to CRD
Part I gives an appropriate balance and provides more flexibility.
comment 387 comment by: Thomas Wendt
Comment 13
Page 30 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart K - 21A.307 Release of parts and appliances for installation
Enhance (c) so that for all commercial usage it is possible to install parts
without explicit Form 1 only when they come with a release certificate from the
aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released parts must not
have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft manufacturer, but they
must undergo the same quality inspection process that this specific part
undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft manufacturer upon
initial installation.
response Not accepted
There have been many comments on this proposal and the text has been
changed: for an explanation of the changes please see CRD Part I paragraph 7
and the resulting text attached to CRD Part I.
The proposal made by the commentator would give an advantage to original
manufacturers. The Agency believes that the changed text attached to CRD
Part I gives an appropriate balance and provides more flexibility.
comment 425 comment by: Flight Design GmbH Matthias Betsch CEO
Enhance (c) so that for all commercial usage it is possible to install parts
without explicit Form 1 only when they come with a release certificate from the
aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released parts must not
have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft manufacturer, but they
must undergo the same quality inspection process that this specific part
undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft manufacturer upon
initial installation.
response Not accepted
There have been many comments on this proposal and the text has been
changed: for an explanation of the changes please see CRD Part I paragraph 7
and the resulting text attached to CRD Part I.
The proposal made by the commentator would give an advantage to original
manufacturers. The Agency believes that the changed text attached to CRD
Part I gives an appropriate balance and provides more flexibility.
comment 494 comment by: light-wings Oliver Liedmann
Enhance (c) so that for all commercial usage it is possible to install parts
without explicit Form 1 only when they come with a release certificate from the
aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released parts must not
have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft manufacturer, but they
must undergo the same quality inspection process that this specific part
undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft manufacturer upon
Page 340 of 446

initial installation.
response Not accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
There have been many comments on this proposal and the text has been
changed: for an explanation of the changes please see CRD Part I paragraph 7
and the resulting text attached to CRD Part I.
The proposal made by the commentator would give an advantage to original
manufacturers. The Agency believes that the changed text attached to CRD
Part I gives an appropriate balance and provides more flexibility.
comment 513 comment by: aeroklaus
Comment 13
Page 30 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart K -
21A.307 Release of parts and appliances for installation
Enhance (c) so that for all commercial usage it is possible to install parts
without explicit Form 1 only when they come with a release certificate from the
aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released parts must not
have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft manufacturer, but they
must undergo the same quality inspection process that this specific part
undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft manufacturer upon
initial installation.
response Not accepted
There have been many comments on this proposal and the text has been
changed: for an explanation of the changes please see CRD Part I paragraph 7
and the resulting text attached to CRD Part I.
The proposal made by the commentator would give an advantage to original
manufacturers. The Agency believes that the changed text attached to CRD
Part I gives an appropriate balance and provides more flexibility.
comment 513 comment by: aeroklaus
Comment 13
Page 30 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart K -
21A.307 Release of parts and appliances for installation
Enhance (c) so that for all commercial usage it is possible to install parts
without explicit Form 1 only when they come with a release certificate from the
aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released parts must not
have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft manufacturer, but they
must undergo the same quality inspection process that this specific part
undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft manufacturer upon
initial installation.
response Not accepted
There have been many comments on this proposal and the text has been
changed: for an explanation of the changes please see CRD Part I paragraph 7
and the resulting text attached to CRD Part I.
The proposal made by the commentator would give an advantage to original
manufacturers. The Agency believes that the changed text attached to CRD
Part I gives an appropriate balance and provides more flexibility.
Page 341 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 537 comment by: Austro Control GmbH
Subpart K
Comment
The proposal is generally acceptable, except for major parts such as engine
and propeller and TSO parts (e.g. COMM ,NAV, altimeter, airspeed
equipment).
As long as this aircraft are flying in the same airspace, a minimum technical
standard must be guaranteed.
The existing marking in 21A.307 (b) is missing.
Proposal
21A.307:
add to NPA (b) and (c): "... except for engine, propeller and TSO parts".
add old marking of 21A.307(b)
response Not accepted
There have been many comments on this proposal and the text has been
changed: for an explanation of the changes please see CRD Part I paragraph 7
and the resulting text attached to CRD Part I.
Engine and propellers are products, not parts and appliances. The affected
paragraph is related to parts and appliances.
Concerning ETSO, the rationale put forward by the commentator is that a
minimum standard must be retained. The proposal from the Agency still
requires an approved design in accordance with Part 21. The alleviation is only
on the production release.
comment 593 comment by: klaus M
Comment 13
Page 30 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart K -
21A.307 Release of parts and appliances for installation
Enhance (c) so that for all commercial usage it is possible to install parts
without explicit Form 1 only when they come with a release certificate from the
aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released parts must not
have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft manufacturer, but they
must undergo the same quality inspection process that this specific part
undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft manufacturer upon
initial installation.
response Not accepted
There have been many comments on this proposal and the text has been
changed: for an explanation of the changes please see CRD Part I paragraph 7
and the resulting text attached to CRD Part I.
The proposal made by the commentator would give an advantage to original
manufacturers. The Agency believes that the changed text attached to CRD
Part I gives an appropriate balance and provides more flexibility.
comment 638 comment by: Martin Josef Warken
Comment 13
Page 30 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart K - 21A.307 Release of parts and appliances for installation
Enhance (c) so that for all commercial usage it is possible to install parts
Page 342 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
without explicit Form 1 only when they come with a release certificate from the
aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released parts must not
have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft manufacturer, but they
must undergo the same quality inspection process that this specific part
undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft manufacturer upon
initial installation.
response Not accepted
There have been many comments on this proposal and the text has been
changed: for an explanation of the changes please see CRD Part I paragraph 7
and the resulting text attached to CRD Part I.
The proposal made by the commentator would give an advantage to original
manufacturers. The Agency believes that the changed text attached to CRD
Part I gives an appropriate balance and provides more flexibility.
comment 651 comment by: Cessna Aircraft Company
Enhance (c) so that for all commercial usage it is possible to install parts
without explicit Form 1 only when they come with a release certificate from the
aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released parts must not
have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft manufacturer, but they
must undergo the same quality inspection process that this specific part
undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft manufacturer upon
initial installation.
response Not accepted
There have been many comments on this proposal and the text has been
changed: for an explanation of the changes please see CRD Part I paragraph 7
and the resulting text attached to CRD Part I.
The proposal made by the commentator would give an advantage to original
manufacturers. The Agency believes that the changed text attached to CRD
Part I gives an appropriate balance and provides more flexibility.
comment 715 comment by: procomposite
Enhance (c) so that for all commercial usage it is possible to install parts
without explicit Form 1 only when they come with a release certificate from the
aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released parts must not
have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft manufacturer, but they
must undergo the same quality inspection process that this specific part
undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft manufacturer upon
initial installation.
response Not accepted
There have been many comments on this proposal and the text has been
changed: for an explanation of the changes please see CRD Part I paragraph 7
and the resulting text attached to CRD Part I.
The proposal made by the commentator would give an advantage to original
manufacturers. The Agency believes that the changed text attached to CRD
Part I gives an appropriate balance and provides more flexibility.
comment 738 comment by: Oliver
Enhance (c) so that for all commercial usage it is possible to install parts
Page 343 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
without explicit Form 1 only when they come with a release certificate from the
aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released parts must not
have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft manufacturer, but they
must undergo the same quality inspection process that this specific part
undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft manufacturer upon
initial installation.
response Not accepted
There have been many comments on this proposal and the text has been
changed: for an explanation of the changes please see CRD Part I paragraph 7
and the resulting text attached to CRD Part I.
The proposal made by the commentator would give an advantage to original
manufacturers. The Agency believes that the changed text attached to CRD
Part I gives an appropriate balance and provides more flexibility.
comment 763 comment by: Air Marugan
Comment 13
Enhance (c) so that for all commercial usage it is possible to install parts
without explicit Form 1 only when they come with a release certificate from the
aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released parts must not
have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft manufacturer, but they
must undergo the same quality inspection process that this specific part
undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft manufacturer upon
initial installation.
response Not accepted
There have been many comments on this proposal and the text has been
changed: for an explanation of the changes please see CRD Part I paragraph 7
and the resulting text attached to CRD Part I.
The proposal made by the commentator would give an advantage to original
manufacturers. The Agency believes that the changed text attached to CRD
Part I gives an appropriate balance and provides more flexibility.
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart L -
Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for Design and Production
of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and (c)
comment 62 comment by: John Tempest
response Noted
p. 30
I strongly support the concept of a combined DOA/POA, providing that the total
approval fee will be low (eg, half the total fee that would be required for
individual DOA and POA approvals).
comment 102 comment by: European Sailplane Manufacturers
The manufacturers applaud the now taken approach to make organisation
certification easier than it is today within Part 21.
But beside the special problem with the overlapping responsibilities of EASA
and NAA (see seperate comment) two important details have to be observed if
this concept really should lead to a less stringent environment for ELA
Page 344 of 446

esponse Noted
manufacturers:
A) Fees & charges:
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Today the fees for certification and upholding the approvals for design /
production / maintenance organisation has increased unduely in comparison to
the status before Part 21 became active.
Neither have the manufacturers the means to increase their income or their
efficiency due to the new rules nor has the changed administration of EASA
and NAA´s led to any safety benefits.
The result is simply added effort on the side of the manufacturers and
therefore increased prices for the customers.
Therefore the fees & charges system has to adapted in a way that General
Aviation has not to pay this undue share of authority fees because otherwise
the proposed alleviations will not result into the positive effects hoped for.
The momentary euphory of manufacturers which are today outside of the EASA
responsibilty has really seen also under the perpective that those companies
simply have not yet experienced this financial burden.
If EASA and also the European Commission understand now better how
important General Aviation could be for Europe this possibility of alleviation
gexisting burdens must not be forgotten (even if it is outside the scope of this
NPA 2008-07).
B) Transfer of existing organisation approvals into a Subpart L "PDOA":
All manufacturers are also TC holders therefore they have already an POA and
(in most cases) an ADOA or (sometimes) a DOA.
It is necessary that EASA gives these companies a direct way of converting
their existing approvals into a PDOA.
Existing experience with POA / ADOA / DOA approval procedures shows that
the effort for these processes takes unduely large amount of manpower (and
finances) from these typically very small companies which is taken away from
their primary tasks.
So a direct conversion should be possible instead as a complete new round of
application - handbook-writing - audit - approval.
The possible counter argument that existing ADOA privileges do not include the
PDOA privileges is not valid.
If for ELA 1 aircraft no organisation approval for the TC holder is now
considered to be sufficient then an ADOA could definitely be considered
sufficient to hold those privileges.
Additionally many of the sailplane manufacturers were already holder of
national DOA (before Part 21) and have been reduced in their privileges only
because of changed wording in Part 21 in comparison to former JAR-21.
Or in other words: these companies already had those privileges and showed
that they were competent and safe working with them.
Therefore a holder of POA and ADOA / DOA should have the option to convert
direct these approvals into the new Subpart L PDOA.
Page 345 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Fees and charges:
Please refer to paragraph (a) 1 of CRD Part I.
Combined approval:
The possibility of a ‘direct’ transfer as suggested by the commentator is
difficult due to the sharing of responsibilites betweeen the Agency and NAAs.
Credit for the existing approvals would be granted when finding compliance
with Sub-part L.
comment 201 comment by: Walter Gessky
Subpart L could be deleted. Will only complicate the system and seems to be
not having any benefits. See the general comment.
response Not accepted
There is support from industry for such approval, and benefits in the form of
reduced audit burden do exist: therefore, despite the complexity of such
approvals , the Agency does not agree to delete Sub-part L.
comment 459 comment by: www.fascination-pilots.de
response Noted
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to
exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart G. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart K, but limited to products falling under ELA 1, when deviating from the
relevant paragraphs for the Quality System (21A.139 (a) (b) or (c)) on the
basis of a valid approval following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid
positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO
9100. The approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Rather than accepting the standards mentioned by the commentator, we have
now developed a concept of simplified DOA.
comment 523 comment by: Austro Control GmbH
General comment to Subpart L - Combined Approval
The typical technical organisation in the GA ELA1 Group has 5 employees with
different engineering and mechanical background. The scope of this kind of
organisations normally cover:
Maintenance
Engineering for minor changes and repairs
Design and Production of some airplanes as TC Holder
Page 346 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Production and sale of spare parts
Only this wide range of activities allow those organisations to operate
economically. There is no safety concern.
This might be a key Element in ELA1, to habve only one organisation!
Proposal:
Delete Subpart L.
Create a new organisational approval which may have a scope of work for
maintenance, production, design and CAMO (ARC privilege) for ELA 1. One
Handbook for all capablilities.
The description given is correct but this will be even more complex than the
one proposed.
comment 569 comment by: UK CAA
response Noted
Subpart L - Title As maintenance privileges are proposed in the NPA, the
word "maintenance" should be in the title.
Suggested text
SUBPART L - Combined Approval of Organisations
Responsible for Design, Production and Maintenance of
aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and (c)
Maintenance privilege has been brought back to the present privilege for POA.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 5.
comment 684 comment by: Evektor
response Noted
EVEKTOR position:
Combined DOA/POA and DOA AP "with privileges" must me detailly explained
in AMC/GM if the privileges would be different to current DOA procedures.
For combined DOA/POA would be very important to assure the same level of
investigation demands round the EU. Detailed AMC/GM to combinated
DOA/POA would be necessary.
AMC material will be developed as appropriate under Task MDM.032 (d).
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart L -
Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for Design and Production
of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and (c) - 21A.351 Scope
comment 69 comment by: European Sailplane Manufacturers
p. 30
The sailplane manufacturers appreciate very much the approach taken by
EASA to make the application process and later renewal of design & production
organisations easier than it is nowadays.
Nevertheless some weak points of this concept are already visible which have
to be pointed out:
Page 347 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
1. Per basic regulation the responsibility for supervision of design
organisation lies with EASA whereas NAA are responsible for the
production organisations.
2. Therefore the in NPA 2008-07 proposed combined "DPOA" will only
work efficiently for the applicants if both authorities (EASA and the
according NAA) can agree upon a joint process or even better if one
authority delegates the own field of responsibility to the other authority.
3. Otherwise the applicant still has to deal with:
- contact with two different authorities
- audits which are splitted
- different interpretation of Part 21 by the authorities
- higher costs because of fees by two authorities
Therefore the sailplane manufacturers urge EASA herewith to find and propose
a way of installing the PDOA which eliminates this need for cooperation
between EASA and NAA.
Either the required cooperation should be organised automatically "behind the
scenes" without the need for the applicant to make regarding applications and
administrative burden.
Or (better) it should be a clear decision and regulation that such a PDOA
approval / supervision will be handled by one authority alone.
The manufacturers would clearly prefer the second option.
(Additionally this would make Part 21 easier to work with as the required
cooperation now makes paragraphs 21A. 355 / 357 / 363 / 367 / 369 / 371 /
373 / 375 / 377 / 379 undue difficult to understand and to apply...)
If neither option is possible the basic idea of this NPA and the according
rulemaking activity of "simpler regulation for simple aircraft" has clearly failed
in this vital point of interest.
It has to be remembered that nearly all manufacturers state not so much
requirements with their product certification as major hurdle but that the costs
and effort of organisation certification is unacceptable high.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 5.
comment 77 comment by: Dyn'aéro
response Noted
Dyn'Aero soutient ces propositions.
Dyn'Aero supports these proposals.
The Agency thanks the commentator for their support.
comment 164 comment by: Apex Aircraft
response Noted
Le 21A.351 se réfère aux avions définis dans les paragraphes 21A.14b) et c).
On retrouve là l'idée de catégories d'avions de moins de 1000 et 2000 kg. La
notion de "nouveau process" (ELA) semble oubliée au profit d'une nouvelle
catégorie d'avion.
Page 348 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
The Agency confirms that the ELA is a new process as it affects Part-21. There
is a need to define the aircraft to which the process is applicable and therefore
could be interpreted as categories.
comment 460 comment by: www.fascination-pilots.de
response Noted
Enhance (c) so that for all commercial usage it is possible to install parts
without explicit Form 1 only when they come with a release certificate from the
aircraft manufacturer. These aircraft manufacturer released parts must not
have a Form 1 from the original supplier to the aircraft manufacturer, but they
must undergo the same quality inspection process that this specific part
undergoes to be allowed to be installed by the aircraft manufacturer upon
initial installation.
There have been many comments on this proposal and the text has been
changed: for an explanation of the changes please see CRD Part I paragraph 7
and the resulting text attached to CRD Part I.
The proposal made by the commentator would give an advantage to original
manufacturers. The Agency believes that the changed text attached to CRD
Part I gives an appropriate balance and provides more flexibility.
comment 696 comment by: Deutscher Aero Club e.V. (DAeC)
response Noted
DAeC very much welcomes the possibility to have a combined DOA and POA
approval. But as NAA are responsible for the approval and oversight of POA
EASA is responsible for DOA. This splitting is likely to result in additional
administrative burden when all three parties have to coordinate their activities.
DAeC proposes to transfer the responsibility for combined DOA & POA
organisations to EASA directly.
The Agency thanks the commentator for their support.
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart L -
Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for Design and Production
of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and (c) - 21A.353 Eligibility
comment 10 comment by: Francis Fagegaltier Services
response Noted
p. 31
21A.353 (a), which is de facto open to any person, seems to be conflicting with
21A.351 (a), which intents to limit the eligibility !
21A.353 (a) defines the eligibility (who can apply) and 21A.351 establishes the
scope of this subpart (for what aircraft).
comment 11 comment by: Francis Fagegaltier Services
There are two subparagraphs "v", one being empty, and there is a text at the
end finishing with an "and".
What is the really proposed text ?
Page 349 of 446

esponse Accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Editorial mistake corrected in CRD Part I.
comment 83 comment by: Apex Aircraft
response Accepted
Le 21A.353 est incomplet et doit être revisé (le chapitre se termine par "and")
Editorial mistake corrected in CRD Part I.
comment 536 comment by: CAA CZ
response Accepted
Editorial change only: Please delete following text:
iv) ...
v)
v) Hold or have applied for an approval...
It is specified above in (b)
Editorial mistake corrected in CRD Part I.
comment 665 comment by: European Sailplane Manufacturers
response Accepted
Typo mistake:
subpara v) is written twice
Editorial mistake corrected in CRD Part I.
comment 678 comment by: DGAC France
1a. COMMENT TO :
ü Draft Opinion(s)
Amendment to Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1702/2003 Part 21
1b. AFFECTED PARAGRAPH :
21.A.35,
21.A.163
21.A.353
2. PROPOSED TEXT:
- 21A.35 : A line return is missing after « Agency » before the paragraph
(b).
- 21A.163 : delete one « for any »
- 21A.353 : delete one (v)
3. JUSTIFICATION:
These are typos.
response Accepted
Page 350 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Editorial mistake corrected in CRD Part I.
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart L -
Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for Design and Production
of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and (c) - 21A.355 Application
comment 202 comment by: Walter Gessky
p. 31
21A. 355 Application
Delete the following:
"Each application.......and Competent Authority or Agency when the Member
State has made use of article 20 (2) (b) (ii) of the Basic Regulation in a
form......"
Justification:
The reference to the basic regulation can be deleted and must not be
mentioned. MS can anytime request EASA to issue POA approvals.
response Not accepted
The text reflects the possible options for the sake of clarity.
comment 544 comment by: Austro Control GmbH
21A. 355 Application
Change the paragraph to:
"Each application.......and Competent Authority or Agency when the Member
State has made use of article 20 (2) (b) (ii) of the Basic Regulation in a form
..."
The difference in the fees and charges regulation of EASA and the several
member states are too high. Some member states even do not have fees for
the oversight of the approvals.
If the article 20 (2)(b)(ii) of the Basic Regulation will be used by a member
state is any time possible and must not be mentioned here.
response Not accepted
The text reflects the possible options for the sake of clarity.
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart L -
Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for Design and Production
of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and (c) - 21A.357 Issue of
Approval
comment 160 comment by: ENAC
p. 31
Today Reg. 216/2008 gives the responsibility for the approval and oversight of
production organisation to NAA and of design organisation to EASA. The par.
21A.357 does not appear in compliance with the Reg. 216/2008.
response Not accepted
The paragraph indicates clearly that the Agency can only issue the combined
approval when it is in line with the Basic Regulation.
Page 351 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart L -
Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for Design and Production
of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and (c) - 21A.359 Design
Assurance System
p. 31-32
comment 130 comment by: Ultraleicht-Flugverein Saar-Pfalz e.V.
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high,
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As a fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, than could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries, where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II), it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
response Not accepted
Acceptance of designers that “hold” an ASTM or ISO qualification cannot be
seen as an “approved” alternative to a DOA. These “approvals” are not issued
and controlled as required by the Basic Regulation. It would however be
possible to benefit both in content and time from the implementation of these
standards by showing that the implemented procedures comply (partly) with
the DOA requirements of Part-21 Subpart J. This could be reflected in an AMC
to be developed under task MDM.032 (d).
comment 176 comment by: Alexander Eich
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
Page 352 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b) or (c) , when deviating from the relevant
paragraphs for the design assurance system but having a valid approval
following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration, but valid positive
audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The
approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
comment 247 comment by: Ronald MEYER
Comment 8
Page 31/32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart L - Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for
Design and Production of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and
(c) - 21A.359 Design Assurance System
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high,
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As a fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, than could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries, where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II), it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
comment 248 comment by: Ronald MEYER
Comment 9
Page 31/32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart L - Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for
Design and Production of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and
(c) - 21A.359 Design Assurance System
Negative. The proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, which we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
Page 353 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, as long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products coming within
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b) or (c) , when deviating from the relevant
paragraphs for the design assurance system but having a valid approval
following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration, but valid positive
audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The
approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
comment 256 comment by: Gorden WIEGELS
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
comment 265 comment by: Gorden WIEGELS
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
Page 354 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b) or (c) , when deviating from the relevant
paragraphs for the design assurance system but having a valid approval
following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration, but valid positive
audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The
approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
comment 279 comment by: Klaus Erger
Comment 14
Page 31/32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart
L - Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for Design and Production
of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and (c) - 21A.359 Design Assurance
System
Comment 2 also valid here
Comment 15
Page 31/32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart
L - Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for Design and Production
of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and (c) - 21A.359 Design Assurance
System
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b) or (c) , when deviating from the relevant
paragraphs for the design assurance system but having a valid approval
following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration, but valid positive
audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The
approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Comment 16
Page 32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart L -
Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for Design and Production of
Page 355 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and (c) - 21A.361 Production
Organisational Review
Comment 2 also applies here
Comment 17
Page 32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart L -
Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for Design and Production of
aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and (c) - 21A.361 Production
Organisational Review
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient
to exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (c) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b), when deviating from the relevant paragraphs
for the Production Organizational Review on the basis of a valid approval
following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid positive audit of accepted
organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The approval will be
accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
comment 300 comment by: Karg
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights -
mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world - in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are already flying (LSA, homebuilt
Page 356 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
aircrafts, Annex II), it is proven that deregulation in general is not reason for
less safety, much more it can even improve safety.
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
comment 301 comment by: Karg
Page 31/32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart L - Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for
Design and Production of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and
(c) - 21A.359 Design Assurance System
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b) or (c) , when deviating from the relevant
paragraphs for the design assurance system but having a valid approval
following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration, but valid positive
audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The
approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
comment 322 comment by: TECNAM
Comment 2 also valid here
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
comment 323 comment by: TECNAM
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval exists
Page 357 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b) or (c) , when deviating from the relevant
paragraphs for the design assurance system but having a valid approval
following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration, but valid positive
audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The
approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
comment 362 comment by: O. Reinhardt / Flightdesign
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
This comment is also valid for several other locations as linked, and for the
Who does what- Table, there section "organisational approval" (not possible to
link exactly)
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
comment 372 comment by: O. Reinhardt / Flightdesign
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
Page 358 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b) or (c) , when deviating from the relevant
paragraphs for the design assurance system but having a valid approval
following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration, but valid positive
audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The
approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
comment 388 comment by: Thomas Wendt
Comment 14
Page 31/32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart L - Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for
Design and Production of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and
(c) - 21A.359 Design Assurance System
Comment 2 also valid here
Comment 15
Page 31/32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart L - Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for
Design and Production of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and
(c) - 21A.359 Design Assurance System
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b) or (c) , when deviating from the relevant
paragraphs for the design assurance system but having a valid approval
following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration, but valid positive
audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The
approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Page 359 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Please see reply to comment No 130.
comment 400 comment by: Flight Design GmbH Matthias Betsch CEO
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
comment 422 comment by: Flight Design GmbH Matthias Betsch CEO
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b) or (c) , when deviating from the relevant
paragraphs for the design assurance system but having a valid approval
following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration, but valid positive
audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The
approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
Page 360 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 461 comment by: www.fascination-pilots.de
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b) or (c) , when deviating from the relevant
paragraphs for the design assurance system but having a valid approval
following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration, but valid positive
audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The
approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
comment 473 comment by: Tegelbeckers
Comment 14
Page 31/32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart
L - Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for Design and Production
of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and (c) - 21A.359 Design Assurance
System
Comment 2 also valid here
Comment 15
Page 31/32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart
L - Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for Design and Production
of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and (c) - 21A.359 Design Assurance
System
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b) or (c) , when deviating from the relevant
paragraphs for the design assurance system but having a valid approval
following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration, but valid positive
audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The
Page 361 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
Comment 16
Page 32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart L -
Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for Design and Production of
aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and (c) - 21A.361 Production
Organisational Review
Comment 2 also applies here
Comment 17
Page 32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart L -
Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for Design and Production of
aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and (c) - 21A.361 Production
Organisational Review
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient
to exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (c) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b), when deviating from the relevant paragraphs
for the Production Organizational Review on the basis of a valid approval
following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid positive audit of accepted
organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The approval will be
accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
comment 484 comment by: Ultraleicht-Flugverein Saar-Pfalz e.V.
Negative. The proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, which we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, as long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products coming within
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b) or (c) , when deviating from the relevant
paragraphs for the design assurance system but having a valid approval
following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration, but valid positive
audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The
Page 362 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
comment 495 comment by: light-wings Oliver Liedmann
Comment 2 also valid here
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b) or (c) , when deviating from the relevant
paragraphs for the design assurance system but having a valid approval
following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration, but valid positive
audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The
approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
comment 514 comment by: aeroklaus
Comment 14
Page 31/32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart
L - Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for Design and Production
of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and (c) - 21A.359 Design Assurance
System
Comment 2 also valid here
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
comment 515 comment by: aeroklaus
Comment 15
Page 31/32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart
L - Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for Design and Production
of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and (c) - 21A.359 Design Assurance
System
Page 363 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b) or (c) , when deviating from the relevant
paragraphs for the design assurance system but having a valid approval
following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration, but valid positive
audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The
approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
comment 594 comment by: klaus M
Comment 14
Page 31/32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart
L - Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for Design and Production
of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and (c) - 21A.359 Design Assurance
System
Comment 2 also valid here
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
comment 595 comment by: klaus M
Comment 15
Page 31/32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart
L - Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for Design and Production
of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and (c) - 21A.359 Design Assurance
System
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
Page 364 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b) or (c) , when deviating from the relevant
paragraphs for the design assurance system but having a valid approval
following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration, but valid positive
audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The
approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
comment 639 comment by: Martin Josef Warken
Comment 14
Page 31/32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart L - Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for
Design and Production of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and
(c) - 21A.359 Design Assurance System
Comment 2 also valid here
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
comment 640 comment by: Martin Josef Warken
Comment 15
Page 31/32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart L - Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for
Design and Production of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and
(c) - 21A.359 Design Assurance System
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b) or (c) , when deviating from the relevant
paragraphs for the design assurance system but having a valid approval
following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration, but valid positive
audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The
approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
Page 365 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 645 comment by: Peter VON BURG
Add the posibility to use other equivalent QM Systems like ISO EN 9000 / 9100
for ELA1, especially for aircrafts according ASTM standards.
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
comment 657 comment by: Cessna Aircraft Company
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart J. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to
exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart G. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, as long as the company deals with ELA 1 products only.
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b) or (c) , when deviating from the relevant
paragraphs for the design assurance system but having a valid approval
following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration, but valid positive
audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The
approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
comment 716 comment by: procomposite
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b) or (c) , when deviating from the relevant
paragraphs for the design assurance system but having a valid approval
following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration, but valid positive
audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The
approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
Page 366 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 739 comment by: Oliver
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
comment 740 comment by: Oliver
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b) or (c) , when deviating from the relevant
paragraphs for the design assurance system but having a valid approval
following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration, but valid positive
audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The
approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
comment 764 comment by: Air Marugan
Page 367 of 446

Comment 14
Comment 2 also valid here
response Not accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Please see reply to comment No 130.
comment 765 comment by: Air Marugan
Comment 15
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the design capabilities in equivalent, but not identical
way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient to exercise
the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval exists
following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must
be considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (d) must be added, allowing to reach DOA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b) or (c) , when deviating from the relevant
paragraphs for the design assurance system but having a valid approval
following the appropriate ASTM standard (no self declaration, but valid positive
audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The
approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
comment 789 comment by: Herbert HERGET
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high,
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft. There is no
connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality20system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As a fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, than could be achieved by Agency control. This is the
background for the c omments proposing solutions on how to go with the EASA
DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO qualifications
of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing. In all countries,
where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt aircrafts,
Annex II), it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a reason for
less safety and can even improve safety.
response Not accepted
Page 368 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Please see reply to comment No 130.
comment 790 comment by: Herbert HERGET
Negative. The proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough. Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified
aircraft, which we can find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot o f cases
already have approved quality standards manifesting the design capabilities in
equivalent, but not identical way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these
are fully sufficient to exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when
a valid approval exists following the appropriate ASTM standard, DIN EN ISO
9001 or 9100, this must be considered equivalent, as long as the company
deals with ELA 1 products only. Proposal: A block (d) must be added, allowing
to reach DOA pr ivileges as defined in Subpart L within combined DOA/POA
process limited to products coming within ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b) or
(c) , when deviating from the relevant paragraphs for the design assurance
system but having a valid approval following the appropriate ASTM standard
(no self declaration, but valid positive audit of accepted organization), DIN EN
ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The approval will be accepted without further
auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see reply to comment No 130.
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart L -
Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for Design and Production
of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and (c) - 21A.361 Production
Organisational Review
comment 119 comment by: Ultraleicht-Flugverein Saar-Pfalz e.V.
p. 32
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high,
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As a fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, than could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries, where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II), it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
Page 369 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 129 comment by: Ultraleicht-Flugverein Saar-Pfalz e.V.
Negative. The proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, which we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient
to exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, as long as the company deals with ELA 1 products only.
Proposal:
A block (c) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products coming within
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b), when deviating from the relevant paragraphs
for the Production Organizational Review on the basis of a valid approval
following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid positive audit of accepted
organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The approval will be
accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4 for the production issues.
Task BR.010 may allow to go beyond what is proposed here (please see
paragraph 2 of CRD Part I).
comment 177 comment by: Alexander Eich
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient
to exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (c) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b), when deviating from the relevant paragraphs
for the Production Organizational Review on the basis of a valid approval
following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid positive audit of accepted
organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The approval will be
accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4 for the production issues.
Task BR.010 may allow to go beyond what is proposed here (please see
paragraph 2 of CRD Part I).
Page 370 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 181 comment by: Ingmar Hedblom
The concept of not requiring a Quality system for production of ELA aircraft is
supported since it is advantageous for small organisations.
However, the term "organisational review system" as used in draft proposal
for 21A.139(c) is more defining a traditional production control system working
on a continous basis. The term has here a different meaning compared to its
use for maintenance organisations as now proposed in EASA Opinion 02-2008
amending regulation 2042/2003. In M.A.712, organisational reviews are
something that is performed on a regular basis and not a daily activity. This
different meaning of organisational reviews in two EASA regulations is
confusing.
It is therefore suggested that the wording of 21A.139(c) should be "By
derogation to....the quality system may be replaced by a Production Control
System and the organisation shall demonstrate that it has established and is
able to maintain a Production Control System......
Corresponding changes in 21A.361.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
comment 203 comment by: Walter Gessky
response Accepted
21A.361 Production Organisational review
Change the title to Quality System, because there is no difference to a Quality
System of 21A.139.
When EASA intend to introduce a simpler system for production of an ELA
aircraft than the requirement should be in line with the Subpart F for
production. Instead of a detailed production organisational review a
production inspection system should be required. The content of the
organisational review is not required to be detailed in the IR, the applicant
should describe the system in the exposition. More details or guidelines could
be given in an AMC or GM.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
comment 249 comment by: Ronald MEYER
Comment 10
Page 32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart L - Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for
Design and Production of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and
(c) - 21A.361 Production Organisational Review
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high,
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
Page 371 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As a fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, than could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries, where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II), it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
comment 250 comment by: Ronald MEYER
Comment 11
Page 32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart L - Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for
Design and Production of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and
(c) - 21A.361 Production Organisational Review
Negative. The proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, which we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient
to exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, as long as the company deals with ELA 1 products only.
Proposal:
A block (c) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products coming within
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b), when deviating from the relevant paragraphs
for the Production Organizational Review on the basis of a valid approval
following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid positive audit of accepted
organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The approval will be
accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4 for the production issues.
Task BR.010 may allow to go beyond what is proposed here (please see
paragraph 2 of CRD Part I).
comment 256 comment by: Gorden WIEGELS
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
Page 372 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
comment 266 comment by: Gorden WIEGELS
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient
to exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (c) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b), when deviating from the relevant paragraphs
for the Production Organizational Review on the basis of a valid approval
following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid positive audit of accepted
organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The approval will be
accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4 for the production issues.
Task BR.010 may allow to go beyond what is proposed here (please see
paragraph 2 of CRD Part I).
comment 302 comment by: Karg
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights -
mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world - in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
Page 373 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are already flying (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II), it is proven that deregulation in general is not reason for
less safety, much more it can even improve safety.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
comment 303 comment by: Karg
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient
to exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (c) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b), when deviating from the relevant paragraphs
for the Production Organizational Review on the basis of a valid approval
following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid positive audit of accepted
organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The approval will be
accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4 for the production issues.
Task BR.010 may allow to go beyond what is proposed here (please see
paragraph 2 of CRD Part I).
comment 324 comment by: TECNAM
Comment 2 also applies here
response Not accepted
Page 374 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4 for the production issues.
Task BR.010 may allow to go beyond what is proposed here (please see
paragraph 2 of CRD Part I).
comment 325 comment by: TECNAM
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient
to exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (c) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b), when deviating from the relevant paragraphs
for the Production Organizational Review on the basis of a valid approval
following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid positive audit of accepted
organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The approval will be
accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4 for the production issues.
Task BR.010 may allow to go beyond what is proposed here (please see
paragraph 2 of CRD Part I).
comment 351 comment by: Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Switzerland
Production organization:
From an overall "production organization" standpoint, it has to be remarked
that several systems for initial approval and surveillance are currently in place.
The introduction of a combined DOA/POA would further increase the amount of
necessary procedures for both the Applicants and the parties responsible for
the surveillance. Not to be overlooked that some organizations might still need
to be oversighted both by EASA and by a NAA. Under these circumstances
there are reasons to believe that a complex and confusing system may result
and, consequently, it's hard to realize how the expected cost advantages might
be achieved. (NOTE. These considerations are based on the results of the
introduction of different systems for the initial approval and surveillance of
manufacturers of Annex I and Annex II aircraft).
The proposal to introduce a "production organizational review system" is too
vague to be properly evaluated: a description of what is meant by "production
organizational review system" should be pro-vided. However, based on the
information available in the NPA text, it can hardly be seen as a practi-cal way
to simplify the requirements currently defined under Subpart G. On the
contrary, there is a risk that the production organizational review system could
translate in a further paper exercise (new set of procedures) having little to do
with the intent of the requirements contained in Subpart G.
Page 375 of 446

esponse Accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
comment 362 comment by: O. Reinhardt / Flightdesign
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
This comment is also valid for several other locations as linked, and for the
Who does what- Table, there section "organisational approval" (not possible to
link exactly)
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
comment 373 comment by: O. Reinhardt / Flightdesign
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient
to exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (c) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b), when deviating from the relevant paragraphs
for the Production Organizational Review on the basis of a valid approval
following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid positive audit of accepted
organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The approval will be
Page 376 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4 for the production issues.
Task BR.010 may allow to go beyond what is proposed here (please see
paragraph 2 of CRD Part I).
comment 389 comment by: Thomas Wendt
Comment 16
Page 32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart L - Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for
Design and Production of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and
(c) - 21A.361 Production Organisational Review
Comment 2 also applies here
Comment 17
Page 32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart L - Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for
Design and Production of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and
(c) - 21A.361 Production Organisational Review
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient
to exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (c) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b), when deviating from the relevant paragraphs
for the Production Organizational Review on the basis of a valid approval
following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid positive audit of accepted
organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The approval will be
accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4 for the production issues.
Task BR.010 may allow to go beyond what is proposed here (please see
paragraph 2 of CRD Part I).
comment 400 comment by: Flight Design GmbH Matthias Betsch CEO
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
Page 377 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4 for the production issues.
Task BR.010 may allow to go beyond what is proposed here (please see
paragraph 2 of CRD Part I).
comment 423 comment by: Flight Design GmbH Matthias Betsch CEO
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient
to exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (c) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b), when deviating from the relevant paragraphs
for the Production Organizational Review on the basis of a valid approval
following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid positive audit of accepted
organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The approval will be
accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4 for the production issues.
Task BR.010 may allow to go beyond what is proposed here (please see
paragraph 2 of CRD Part I).
comment 462 comment by: www.fascination-pilots.de
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Page 378 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient
to exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (c) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b), when deviating from the relevant paragraphs
for the Production Organizational Review on the basis of a valid approval
following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid positive audit of accepted
organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The approval will be
accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4 for the production issues.
Task BR.010 may allow to go beyond what is proposed here (please see
paragraph 2 of CRD Part I).
comment 496 comment by: light-wings Oliver Liedmann
Comment 2 also applies here.
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient
to exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (c) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b), when deviating from the relevant paragraphs
for the Production Organizational Review on the basis of a valid approval
following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid positive audit of accepted
organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The approval will be
accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4 for the production issues.
Task BR.010 may allow to go beyond what is proposed here (please see
paragraph 2 of CRD Part I).
comment 516 comment by: aeroklaus
Page 379 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Comment 16
Page 32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart L -
Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for Design and Production of
aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and (c) - 21A.361 Production
Organisational Review
Comment 2 also applies here
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
comment 517 comment by: aeroklaus
Comment 17
Page 32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart L -
Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for Design and Production of
aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and (c) - 21A.361 Production
Organisational Review
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient
to exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (c) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b), when deviating from the relevant paragraphs
for the Production Organizational Review on the basis of a valid approval
following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid positive audit of accepted
organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The approval will be
accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4 for the production issues.
Task BR.010 may allow to go beyond what is proposed here (please see
paragraph 2 of CRD Part I).
comment 545 comment by: Austro Control GmbH
response Accepted
21A.361 Production Organisational review
Change the text to quality system, because there is no difference to the quality
system of 21A.139.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
Page 380 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 570 comment by: UK CAA
response Accepted
21A.361(b)(ii) 21A.361(b)(ii) requires "An internal quality assurance
function...."
The important part of this element, taken from subpart G,
is the independence of the monitoring of compliance.
Replacing ‘independent' with ‘internal' loses this point. A
small organisation can still achieve an independent audit of
its compliance as demonstrated by numerous very small
current POA holders (3-4 staff).
Suggested text
"An independent quality assurance function...."
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
comment 596 comment by: klaus M
Comment 16
Page 32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart L -
Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for Design and Production of
aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and (c) - 21A.361 Production
Organisational Review
Comment 2 also applies here
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
comment 597 comment by: klaus M
Comment 17
Page 32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart L -
Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for Design and Production of
aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and (c) - 21A.361 Production
Organisational Review
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient
to exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (c) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b), when deviating from the relevant paragraphs
for the Production Organizational Review on the basis of a valid approval
following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid positive audit of accepted
organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The approval will be
accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Page 381 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4 for the production issues.
Task BR.010 may allow to go beyond what is proposed here (please see
paragraph 2 of CRD Part I).
comment 641 comment by: Martin Josef Warken
Comment 16
Page 32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart L - Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for
Design and Production of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and
(c) - 21A.361 Production Organisational Review
Comment 2 also applies here
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4 for the production issues.
Task BR.010 may allow to go beyond what is proposed here (please see
paragraph 2 of CRD Part I).
comment 642 comment by: Martin Josef Warken
Comment 17
Page 32 - B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A -
Subpart L - Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for
Design and Production of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and
(c) - 21A.361 Production Organisational Review
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient
to exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (c) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b), when deviating from the relevant paragraphs
for the Production Organizational Review on the basis of a valid approval
following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid positive audit of accepted
organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The approval will be
accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4 for the production issues.
Task BR.010 may allow to go beyond what is proposed here (please see
paragraph 2 of CRD Part I).
comment 646 comment by: Peter VON BURG
Page 382 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Add additional QM standards like ISO EN 9000 / 9100 especially for aircrafts
according ASTM standard.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
comment 699 comment by: Cessna Aircraft Company
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient
to exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, as long as the company deals with ELA 1 products only.
Proposal:
A block (c) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b), when deviating from the relevant paragraphs
for the Production Organizational Review on the basis of a valid approval
following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid positive audit of accepted
organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The approval will be
accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4 for the production issues.
Task BR.010 may allow to go beyond what is proposed here (please see
paragraph 2 of CRD Part I).
comment 718 comment by: procomposite
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient
to exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (c) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b), when deviating from the relevant paragraphs
for the Production Organizational Review on the basis of a valid approval
following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid positive audit of accepted
organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The approval will be
accepted without further auditing or checking.
Page 383 of 446

esponse Not accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4 for the production issues.
Task BR.010 may allow to go beyond what is proposed here (please see
paragraph 2 of CRD Part I).
comment 741 comment by: Oliver
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
comment 742 comment by: Oliver
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient
to exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (c) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b), when deviating from the relevant paragraphs
for the Production Organizational Review on the basis of a valid approval
following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid positive audit of accepted
organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The approval will be
accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Page 384 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4 for the production issues.
Task BR.010 may allow to go beyond what is proposed here (please see
paragraph 2 of CRD Part I).
comment 766 comment by: Air Marugan
Comment 16
Comment 2 also applies here
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4 for the production issues.
Task BR.010 may allow to go beyond what is proposed here (please see
paragraph 2 of CRD Part I).
comment 767 comment by: Air Marugan
Comment 17
Negative - the proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough.
Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified aircraft, that we can
find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already have approved quality
standards manifesting the production capabilities in equivalent, but not
identical way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these are fully sufficient
to exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when a valid approval
exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this must be
considered equivalent, ass long as the company deals with ELA 1 products
only.
Proposal:
A block (c) must be added, allowing to reach POA privileges as defined in
Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to products falling under
ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b), when deviating from the relevant paragraphs
for the Production Organizational Review on the basis of a valid approval
following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid positive audit of accepted
organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The approval will be
accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4 for the production issues.
Task BR.010 may allow to go beyond what is proposed here (please see
paragraph 2 of CRD Part I).
comment 791 comment by: Herbert HERGET
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high,
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft. There is no
connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production quality
system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level of safety
achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience, any rising
Page 385 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with additional
safety. As a fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient market
self control, than could be achieved by Agency control. This is the background
for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with the EASA DOA and
POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO qualifications of
companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing. In all countries,
where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt aircrafts,
Annex II), it20is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a reason for
less safety and can even improve safety.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
comment 792 comment by: Herbert HERGET
Negative. The proposal as presented here is in the suitable direction, but not
reaching far enough. Companies already delivering to FAA world LSA certified
aircraft, which we can find in EASA world under ELA 1, in a lot of cases already
have approved quality standards manifesting the production capabilities in
equivalent, but not identical way as required by subpart L. Nevertheless these
are fully sufficient to exercise the privileges as defined in Subpart L. So, when
a valid approval exists following ASTM F2279, DIN EN ISO 9001 or 9100, this
must be considered equival ent, as long as the company deals with ELA 1
products only. Proposal: A block (c) must be added, allowing to reach POA
privileges as defined in Subpart L within combined DOA/POA process limited to
products coming within ELA 1 as alternative to (a) or (b), when deviating from
the relevant paragraphs for the Production Organizational Review on the basis
of a valid approval following ASTM F2279 (no self declaration, but valid positive
audit of accepted organization), DIN EN ISO 9001 or DIN EN ISO 9100. The
approval will be accepted without further auditing or checking.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4 for the production issues.
Task BR.010 may allow to go beyond what is proposed here (please see
paragraph 2 of CRD Part I).
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart L -
Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for Design and Production
of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and (c) - 21A.363 Exposition
comment 571 comment by: UK CAA
p. 33
21A.363
It is suggested that a requirement to include a list of partners and significant
subcontractors should be added.
Suggested text:
x) The amendment procedure for the exposition;
xi) A description of the organisational review system and associated
procedures.
Xii) A list of partners and significant subcontractors.
response Partially accepted
This has not been reflected into the CRD Part-I but was an oversight.
Page 386 of 446

esulting
text
A changed text is proposed here.
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
12. A list of those outside parties referred to in 21A.361(a).
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart L -
Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for Design and Production
of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and (c) - 21A.365 Approval
Requirements
p. 33-34
comment 572 comment by: UK CAA
response Accepted
21A.365 As the organisation is to have maintenance privileges,
maintenance requirements should be included; otherwise it
is unfair to Part M organisations. If is suggested that these
requirements could be based on Part M Subpart F (see
M.A.615).
The privilege for maintenance is not kept. Refer to CRD Part I paragraph 4.
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart L -
Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for Design and Production
of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and (c) - 21A.381 Design
Privileges
p. 36-37
comment 1 comment by: Lees Avionics Ltd
response Noted
Will the proposed 21A.381 privilege of the combined POA/DOA for 'making
changes to the flight and/or technical manuals' be extended to existing
Part 21J DOA holders, rather than the current 'making documentary changes to
the Flight Manual' privilege.
This is consistent with Opinion 01/2010. It goes beyond what is proposed in
that Opinion but this is considered acceptable as combined DOA/POA is limited
to ELA that are non-complex aircraft.
comment 159 comment by: Apex Aircraft
response Noted
Le 21A.381 c) prévoit de pouvoir approuver des modifications des manuels de
vol alors qu'un détenteur de DOA ne peut qu' approuver des modifications
documentaires des manuels de vol (voir 21A.263c)).
Les privilèges associés au DOA ne devraient pas être moindres que ceux liés à
un agrément commun conception/production.
This is consistent with Opinion 01/2010. It goes beyond what is proposed in
that opinion but this is considered acceptable as combined DOA/POA is limited
to ELA that are non-complex aircraft.
Page 387 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 573 comment by: UK CAA
response Noted
21A.381(c) It appears from the NPA that no design organisation
approval is required for ELA1, but that an organisation
holding a DOA, APDOA or combined DOA/POA could be the
TC Holder for an ELA1. Could the Agency confirm this?
If the DOA, APDOA or combined DOA/POA can be used for
ELA1, this should be included as an option in the "who does
what" table for ELA 1.
The holder of a combined DOA/POA could be the holder of an ELA TC. Combined
DOA/POA is an option offered to ELA.
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart L -
Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for Design and Production
of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and (c) - 21A.383 Production
Privileges
comment 337 comment by: Luftfahrt-Bundesamt
response Noted
see comment referring to 21A.163
Please see CRD-Part I paragraph 5.
comment 574 comment by: UK CAA
21A.383 Suggested text - title
21A.383 Production and Maintenance Privileges
response Not accepted
p. 37
The maintenance privileges are the same as for production organisations. Please
see CRD Part I paragraph 5.
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart L -
Combined Approval of Organisations Responsible for Design and Production
of aircraft defined in Paragraph 21A.14(b) and (c) - 21A.385 Obligations of
the Holder
p. 37-39
comment 77 comment by: Dyn'aéro
response Noted
Dyn'Aero soutient ces propositions.
Dyn'Aero supports these proposals.
The maintenance privileges are now the same as for production organisations.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 5.
Page 388 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 575 comment by: UK CAA
response Noted
21A.385(g) Due to the maintenance privileges, 21A.385 should include
maintenance obligations derived from those of Parts
M/145/66.
The maintenance privileges are now the same as for production organisations.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 5.
comment 576 comment by: UK CAA
response Noted
21A.385(m) This paragraph needs to be checked for consistency with
Part M subpart F. There also needs to be an equivalent
paragraph for the release of parts and appliances.
The maintenance privileges are now the same as for production organisations.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 5.
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart M p. 39
comment 77 comment by: Dyn'aéro
response Noted
Dyn'Aero soutient ces propositions.
Dyn'Aero supports these proposals.
The Agency thanks you for your support.
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart M -
21A.432B Demonstration of capability
comment 63 comment by: John Tempest
response Noted
p. 39
Guidance material is required here as to the role of the QE. Although the
applicant may submit a Certification Plan to EASA, it is presumed that part of
the Certification Plan would need to identify the NAA or QE to be used to
confirm compliance.
Attachment 2 for ELA 1 makes it clear that confirmation of compliance with the
requirements will be necessary for ELA 1 (and of course ELA-2 will be subject
to normal DOA procedures). However, this paragraph as-writted does not
make it clear that compliance verification by NAA or QE is a requirement.
This is an important point to highlight because for the FAA/ASTM LSA rules and
standards, compliance verification is left in the hands of the
designer/manufacturer - no external validation is required. The FAA approach
places responsibility directly in the hands of the manufacturer. However, I do
not believe that this is the intention of this NPA.
Page 389 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
The EASA Management Board has not adopted yet the policy on the use of QE.
comment 77 comment by: Dyn'aéro
response Noted
Dyn'Aero soutient ces propositions.
Dyn'Aero supports these proposals.
The Agency thanks you for your support.
comment 141 comment by: Apex Aircraft
response Noted
Le 21A.432Bc) se réfère aux avions définis dans les paragraphes 21A.14c). On
retrouve là l'idée de catégories d'avions de moins de 1000 kg. La notion de
"nouveau process" (ELA) semble oubliée au profit d'une nouvelle catégorie
d'avion.
The Agency confirms that the ELA is a new process as it affects Part-21. There
is a need to define the aircraft to which the process is applicable and therefore
could be interpreted as categories.
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart M - 21A.436
Standard repairs
comment 12 comment by: Francis Fagegaltier Services
response Accepted
The referenced paragraph A.91 does not exist. What should this reference be ?
p. 39
The commentator is right and the text should have read: 21A.91. The text will
be modified accordingly.
comment 23 comment by: FFVV
response Accepted
Proposition de la FFVV :
Pour les réparations de sructure en matériaux composites, l'approbation de
spécification de certification peut être remplacée par la référence à un manuel
de réparation approuvé, présentant les méthodes, procédures et techniques
applicables. La FFVV a l'intention de développer un tel manuel, conçu par
ailleurs pour la formation des mécaniciens intervenants sur les structures en
matériaux composite. ce type de manuel sera plus complet que les indications
tiré du concept des AC 43-13...
A TC holder can include such a manual in its instructions for continuing
airworthiness for Agency approval.
The Agency intends to use AC 43-13 in the first issue of the CS and then to
update the CS to take into account modern composite structures. In that
context the input from FFVV is welcome.
Page 390 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 24 comment by: FFVV
response Accepted
On behalf on FFVV :
Proposition :
Pour les réparations des strutures en matériaux composites, l'approbation de
certification peut être remplacée par la référence à un manuel de réparation
approuvé, présentant les méthodes, procédues, et techniques applicables à ces
réparations.
Compte tenu de l'expérience acquise depuis trente années au moins dans ce
domaine, la FFVV a prévu de réaliser un tel manuel, qui apportera davantage
de données aux mécaniciens que les indications fournies par les AC 43-13...
A TC holder can include such a manual into its instructions for continuing
airworthiness for agency's approval.
The Agency intends to use AC 43-13 in the first issue of the CS and then to
update the CS to take into account modern composite structures. In that
context the input from FFVV is welcome.
comment 77 comment by: Dyn'aéro
response Noted
Dyn'Aero soutient ces propositions.
Dyn'Aero supports these proposals.
The Agency thanks the commentator for their support.
comment 204 comment by: Walter Gessky
21A.436 Standard repairs
Correct a wrong reference:
(a) By way of derogation to paragraph A.91 21A.437, the
following...
Comment:
The reference to A.91 seams to be incorrect. Correct could be 21A.437
(c) The standard repair is deemed to be approved by the Agency
when it is designed in accordance with the certification
specification mentioned in paragraph (b).
Question:
Can a Part 145 organization use the CS without a DOA?
response Partially accepted
The reference will be changed to Paragraph 21A.437.
The CS is actually approved data that a maintenance organisation may use in
accordance with Part-M.
comment 538 comment by: Austro Control GmbH
Comment
The reference in the first sentence of this § is incomplete.
21A.436(a) is unclear in wording and over defined.
Generally the same comment applies as for standard changes.
An organisation with a combined overall proposal as proposed in this comment
may be eligible for production design and installation of a repair or change.
Page 391 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Proposal
Change in 21A.436(a)
Delete all after Take Off mass and add to 21A.439 and 21A.441:
"An Organisation for ELA1 aircraft holding an combined approval may be
eligible for production, design and embodiment of repairs."
The reference will be changed to Paragraph 21A.437.
The standard change is deemed to be approved by the Agency when it is
designed in accordance with the certification specification.
However, the Agency wishes to point out that changes can only be approved
by the Agency or by an appropriately approved design organisation.
comment 675 comment by: DGAC France
1a. COMMENT TO:
ü Draft Opinion(s)
Amendment to Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1702/2003 Part 21
1b. AFFECTED PARAGRAPH:
21. A.96 and 21.A.436
2. PROPOSED TEXT:
Bien que la DGAC France soit d'accord sur le principe des modifications et
réparations standard, utiliser la terminologie « spécifications de certification »
semble surprenant. Les CS donnent habituellement des exigences
réglementaires, pas un ensemble de dossiers de conception déjà approuvés.
Ne pourrait on avoir une autre appellation ?
Néanmoins, le contenu des ces documents est de toute importance afin d'en
évaluer les bienfaits simplificateurs des processus d'approbation de
modification ou réparation. Une tâche réglementaire définissant ces CS devrait
être inscrit au programme de travail de l'AESA et la DGAC recommande un
groupe de travail impliquant l'industrie et les autorités pour faire avancer ce
sujet.
Par ailleurs, la DGAC demande à l'agence de préciser que l'utilisation concrète
au cas par cas de ces « CS » sera documenté de manière adéquate, en
particulier pour permettre à un organisme CAMO de suivre l'état de navigabilité
des aéronefs qu'il gère.
Courtesy translation:
Although DGAC France agrees on the principle of standard repairs and
modifications, the use of the terminology of certification specification is a bit
surprising. The CS usually gives airworthiness rules, not already approved
airworthiness data. Can't there be another name?
Nevertheless, those document contents are important and shall be carefully
written in order to optimize the benefits for leisure aviation in terms of repairs
and modifications approvals. A rulemaking task shall be added to the EASA
work programme and DGAC France suggests that a group of industry and NAA
representatives shall be in charge of this task.
In addition, DGAC France asks EASA to clarify that the day by day use of this
"CS" will be documented adequately, in particular to make sure a CAMO will be
Page 392 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
able to assess the continued airworthiness of the aircraft it manages.
The Agency agrees that present CS are airworthiness codes. However, the
words certification specifications are broad enough to cover the present case.
The important issue is that such CS are issued and updated using the normal
rulemaking process allowing stakeholders and NAAs to express their views. The
Agency does not exclude the possibility to set up groups for the update of the
CS if the technological progress would make it advisable.
The CS cover the design aspects of the change or repairs. The installation of
such changes or repairs will be done in accordance with Part-M.
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart M - 21A.439
Production of repair parts
p. 39-40
comment 64 comment by: John Tempest
Suggest that repair parts may be produced and released under Subpart K
21A.307 for aircraft as defined in 21A.307.
Suggest adding:
d) Parts produced and released in accordance with 21A.307.
response Not accepted
This paragraph deals with production of parts. 21A.307 allows releasing parts
under certain conditions without a Form 1. Adding the text proposed by the
commentator here is not necessary and could cause confusion.
comment 77 comment by: Dyn'aéro
response Noted
Dyn'Aero soutient ces propositions.
Dyn'Aero supports these proposals.
The Agency thanks the commentator for their support.
comment 205 comment by: Walter Gessky
21A.439
Add a new (d)
(d) in the case of aircraft complying with one of the criteria of
21A.14(b) and (c) and used in non-commercial operation, except for
life limited parts, and complex parts, repair parts produced in
conformity with standard repair data under the responsibility of the
aircraft owner when installed in his aircraft by a certifying staff;
Justification:
For ELA aircraft used in non-commercial operation it should be possible that
certifying staff produce repair parts. Life limited parts and complex parts are
excluded.
response Not accepted
Page 393 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
The proposal goes beyond the scope of the NPA.
Page 394 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart M - 21A.441
Repair embodiment
comment 65 comment by: John Tempest
(a)
Editorial change.
response Accepted
'approved in accordance with Subpart G or L'
Please see changed text of CRD Part I.
comment 77 comment by: Dyn'aéro
response Noted
Dyn'Aero soutient ces propositions.
Dyn'Aero supports these proposals.
The Agency thanks the commentator for their support.
comment 206 comment by: Walter Gessky
p. 40
21A.441 Repair embodiment
(b) The Design Organisation or the combined Design and Production
Organisation shall transmit to the organisation performing the repair all the
necessary installation instructions.
Comments:
Where are the advantages for standard repairs for ELA?
Add a new (c):
•(a) in the case of aircraft complying with one of the criteria of
21A.14(b) and (c) and used in non-commercial operation, except for
complex repairs, repairs in conformity with standard repair data may
be installed under the responsibility of the aircraft owner by a
certifying staff;
Justification:
For ELA aircraft used in non-commercial air transport repairs in compliance
with the CS for standard repair should also be allowed to be installed by
adequately licensed certifying staff. Simplification for ELA.
response Not accepted
This proposal goes beyond the scope of the NPA.
Page 395 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 577 comment by: UK CAA
response Accepted
21A.441 Suggested text
"....with Subpart G or L, under..........."
Please see changed text of CRD Part I.
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart P -
21A.710(a)
comment 77 comment by: Dyn'aéro
response Noted
Dyn'Aero soutient ces propositions.
Dyn'Aero supports these proposals.
p. 40
The Agency thanks the commentator for their support. Please note however
that changes have been made to the proposal as reflected in the changed text
of CRD Part I.
comment 207 comment by: Walter Gessky
Subpart P 21A710(a) 21A.710 (a)
Change the following:
(a) For aircraft defined in 21A.14(b) or (c) and subject to 21A.257(b),
the Agency shall can accept without further verification compliance
documents submitted by the applicant for the purpose of obtaining the
establishment of flight conditions required for a permit to fly.
Comment:
Shall is not acceptable and should be replaced by can. The Agency should
always have the right to verify compliance documents submitted. What kind of
documents the Agency will review is usually notified in the certification work
programme.
For DOA, POA and combined POA/DOA approval of flight conditions is anyway
mentioned as a possible privilege.
It might be beneficial when an AMC be developed with regard to standard
Flight Conditions. Standard Flight conditions for ELA Light Aircraft:
Minimum Crew
Not over populated areas or industrial complexes
Procedures acc to AFM with Va as maximum airspeed
Max bank angle 30°
VMC, VFR day, calm outside of CB
response Partially accepted
Please note that changes have been made to the proposal as reflected in the
changed text of CRD Part I.
The Agency will consider to develop AMC for standard flight conditions for ELA
as part of Task MDM.032 (b).
comment 541 comment by: Austro Control GmbH
Page 396 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Comment
If the Agency has to accept something from an applicant without background
and without any further verification, it is an useless regulation and not
acceptable!
It makes sense that flight conditions are verified because safety of flight is
involved.
It is proposed that the organisation holding the combined approval may
approve the flight conditions without involving the Agency at all. The approval
of the permit to fly is than still at the competent authority. In most cases for
light airplanes, safety of flight is not involved and the approval will be done by
the competent authority.
An AMC should be developed with standard flight conditions.
Proposal
Change to:
For ELA 1 aircraft the flight conditions have to be approved by the Organisation
holding a combined approval, by the QE, by the NAA or directly by the
competent authority.
Add to the AMC:
Standard flight conditions for ELA:
Minimum Crew
Not over populated areas or industrial complexes
Procedures according to AFM with Va as maximum airspeed
Max bank angle 30°
VMC, VFR day, calm, outside of CB
response Partially accepted
Please note that changes have been made to the proposal as reflected in the
changed text of CRD Part I.
The Agency will consider to develop AMC for standard flight conditions for ELA
as part of Task MDM.032 (b).
comment 578 comment by: UK CAA
21A.710(a) Page
40
response Partially accepted
The current Part 21 subpart P assumes that the applicant
will be a DOA. For ELA1 aircraft a DOA is not required. The
wording proposed in the NPA suggests that the Agency
"shall" approve flight conditions for an ELA1 from an
unapproved source without investigation. Is this intended?
Please note that changes have been made to the proposal as reflected in the
changed text of CRD Part I.
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart Q p. 40
comment 77 comment by: Dyn'aéro
response Noted
Dyn'Aero soutient ces propositions.
Dyn'Aero supports these proposals.
The Agency thanks you for your support.
Page 397 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart Q - 21A.801
Identification of products
comment 77 comment by: Dyn'aéro
response Noted
Dyn'Aero soutient ces propositions.
Dyn'Aero supports these proposals.
The Agency thanks you for your support.
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart Q - 21A.804
Identification of parts and appliances
p. 40
p. 40-41
comment 14 comment by: Francis Fagegaltier Services
response Accepted
The reference to subpart Q in the proposed 21A.804 (c) is inadequate because
21A.801 and 21A.805, which are part of subpart Q, are applicable to all
products.
This is also a fundamental issue. Is it acceptable to be unable after an accident
to track down the origin of the parts of an aircraft because there is no marking
?
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 7.
comment 77 comment by: Dyn'aéro
response Noted
Dyn'Aero soutient ces propositions.
Dyn'Aero supports these proposals.
The Agency thanks you for your support. However, please note that we have
withdrawn this proposal after reviewing the other comments received on this
issue that raised valid points.
comment 340 comment by: Luftfahrt-Bundesamt
Topic: Subpart Q 21A.804 and 21A. 805
Concerns:
- Is it correct that the exemptions from the marking requirements for non lifelimited
parts do only apply to part of ELA1-products?
- If this is justifiable, it should also lead to the consequence to exclude parts
for ELA2-products from the exemption to be accompanied by a Form 1 before
the installation of the relevant part. If the marking of the part is required, it
should also be released with an EASA Form 1.
- How can somebody distinguish between parts produced by the manufacturer
and parts produced by aircraft owner if the marking requirements apply only to
life limited parts? If an owner produces a part he might not use the name,
Page 398 of 446

esponse Accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
trademark or symbol of the original manufacturer. But when these markings
are part of the approved design data no full compliance to the design data is
possible. To improve this situation we would recommend a clear identifier on
parts produced by the aircraft owner. Similar to the EPA-approach (European
Part Approval) we would propose to have the letters "AOPP" for "aircraft owner
produced part" on each part which has been produced by an owner. (If our
proposal to replace the "aircraft owner" by the "operator" is accepted, this
would lead to "OPP" "for operator produced part".)
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 7.
comment 579 comment by: UK CAA
21A.804(c); Page
41
response Accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 7.
It is recommended that all parts should at least be marked
with the product designation in order that conformity with
the design may be established. Also, critical parts should
be marked in full compliance with the requirements. It is
not logical to require full compliance for life-limited parts
and not for critical parts.
Suggested text:
(a) Each manufacturer of a part or appliance shall
permanently and legibly mark the part or appliance with:
(1) a name, trademark, or symbol identifying the
manufacturer; and
(2) the part number, as defined in the applicable design
data; and
(3) the letters European Part Approval (EPA) for parts and
appliances produced in accordance with approved design
data not belonging to the Type Certificate holder of the
related product, except for ETSO articles.
(b) By way of derogation from paragraph (a), if the Agency
agrees that a part or appliance is too small or that it is
otherwise impractical to mark a part or appliance with any
of the information required by paragraph (a), the
authorised release document accompanying the part or
appliance or its container shall include the information that
could not be marked on the part.
(c) By way of derogation to paragraph (a), for product
defined in 21A.14(c), the marking in accordance with (a)
(1) & (3) subpart Q, other than is only required for life
limited parts and critical parts.
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section A - Subpart Q - 21A.805
Identification of critical parts
p. 41
comment 13 comment by: Francis Fagegaltier Services
Page 399 of 446

esponse Accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
The added sentence is :
(1) not relevant to the subject of this paragraph 21A.805 and,
(2) not true, because 21A.801 (which is part of subpart Q) is applicable to
products defined in 21A.14 (c).
This added sentence should be deleted.
It is noted that critical parts (at least, this is true for engine critical parts, see
CS-E 515 (a)) are life limited : therefore, this paragraph is always applicable to
products defined in 21A.14 (c).
Furthermore, the concept of critical parts is also valid for such aircraft and
therefore there should not be any alleviation to this safety measure.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 7.
comment 77 comment by: Dyn'aéro
response Noted
Dyn'Aero soutient ces propositions.
Dyn'Aero supports these proposals.
The Agency thanks you for your support. However, please note that we have
withdrawn this proposal after reviewing the other comments received on this
issue that raised valid points.
comment 341 comment by: Luftfahrt-Bundesamt
response Accepted
see comment referring to 21A.804
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 7.
B. Draft Rules - I. Amendments to Part-21 - Section B - Subpart L - 21B.620 p. 41
comment 77 comment by: Dyn'aéro
response Noted
Dyn'Aero soutient ces propositions.
Dyn'Aero supports these proposals.
The Agency thanks the commentator for their support.
comment 208 comment by: Walter Gessky
Section B
Comment:
In addition to the essential requirements according Annex V to EC 216/2008,
Section B should be extended and regulate the standards for qualified entities
too.
Page 400 of 446

esponse Not accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Section B requirements are for competent autorities. Qualifed entities are not
competent authorities. Therefore requirements for QE cannot be included in
section B.
comment 526 comment by: Austro Control GmbH
Comment:
Section B regulates the procedures for competent authorities.
The new concept of EASA is completely different. The competent authority has
different functions and new organisations as NAA or qualified entity are
present.
The procedures for NAA or qualified entities are completely missing.
Proposal:
Add in Section B or a seperate annex for the procedures of NAAs and qualified
entities.
response Not accepted
Section B requirements are for competent autorities. Qualifed entities are not
competent authorities. Therefore requirements for QE cannot be included in
section B.
B. Draft Rules - II. New Certification Specifications for Light Sport
Aeroplanes
comment 25 comment by: FFVV
On behalf of FFVV. Comments
p. 42
La plupart des planeurs ont des MTOM inférieures à 600kg et pourraient entrer
dans ce standard, mais aucune réduction d'exigence, ni pour la certification, ni
pour la maintenance ou la navigabilté n'apparait par rapport aux ELA1. La
FFVV ne voit donc pas l'intérêt de cette nouveauté.
response Not accepted
CS-LSA provides technical requirements that are proportionate to these
aeroplanes. In addition the CS-LSA is based on the ASTM standard used in the
US for the LSA rule.
comment 33 comment by: PPL IFR, UL, Personal View
Please implement an LSA class in Europe:
a) to overcome the 472,5kg MTOW-burden of the German UL-class
b) to ensure travel between European countries will be easier than with
today´s ULs,
c) since planes are expected to become cheaper, if US and Europe have a
single market for that kind of planes.
Today I fly German Ultralights more often than traditional Pipers/Cessnas,
since ULs are
- 50% cheaper to operate and
- I feel safer with a modern Rotax-Engine and a Plane-Parachute in emergency
With a new LSA-class you can lift these advantages to an European level - with
Page 401 of 446

the further advantage of 600kg MTOW.
response Not accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
We have tried to improve the certification conditions for all small aircraft, not
only for LSA. The Agency agrees that remaining within the constraints of Part-
21 only provides limited improvements and has planned task BR.010 to explore
how to go beyond. Please see CRD Part I paragraph 2.
comment 34 comment by: PPL IFR, UL, Personal View
Technically, please refer to the US laws, but please:
a) exclude the max-speed-limit of ~200km/h and
b) modify the US "fixed-pitch-prop requirement" to "fixed or auto-adjusted"pitch-props
You may restrict this exclusion-waiver to airplanes with less noise. Just pick an
ambitious noise-reduction target, the results of current lab-research make it
likely that innovative companies will meet the lower noise-limits to offer a
speedy premium product.
This would push the European innovation into the fields that become more
relevant in the future: "more speed with less noise". As we have seen with the
Germany UL-scene, tremendous developments are possible if the law sets the
right incentives, e.g., compare Cessna 152 to modern ULs.
a) Speed:
From my experience I found it much easier to pilot a well balanced Dynaero-
VLA Rotax 114 at 320km/h-true-airspeed than a Cessna 152 at usual speeds;
even if the air is rough - as long as the stall speed (dirty config) is low (please
keep that limit).
b) Auto-adjusted-pitch-prop
As you know, electrically-adjustable-props are much easier to handle than
manual constantspeed-props with oil pressure. Electrically-adjustable-props
keep the workload to the LSApilot on the same level as an fixed-pitch prop. As
with FADEC, once I had flown one, I was
sure that is the next innovation level. (German-ULs today can operate them
already!)
As I see in my daily work as a strategy consultant, plus as we have seen with
UL, those jurisdictions that promote innovation-waves, have an advantage to
win innovative companies.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 8.
comment 66 comment by: John Tempest
response Noted
I am strongly in support of the content of this CS-LSA.
The Agency thanks the commentator for his support.
comment 78 comment by: Dyn'aéro
Commentaires sur le CS LSA / Comments on CS LSA
1er proposition :
Dyn'Aéro propose la suppression de la CS LSA et a fortiori de toutes mentions
Page 402 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
explicites s'y rapportant présentes dans la NPA 2008-07 (y compris dans la
note explicative).
OU, 2ème proposition :
dans la mesure où le code ASTM F2245 serait utilisé comme référence,
l'alignement des définitions de l'EASA avec celle de la FAA, ce qui se traduit
par :
1.1 le remplacement du paragraphe LSA 1 (ii)
(ii) "A maximum stalling speed in the landing configuration (VS0) of
not more than 45 knots CAS at the aircraft's maximum certificated Take-Off
Mass and most critical centre of gravity."
par celui-ci :
(ii) "A maximum stalling speed in clean configuration (VS1) of not
more than 45 knots at the aircraft's maximum certificated Take-Off Mass and
most critical centre of gravity."
1.2 et l'ajout des paragraphes LSA 1 (v) et (vi):
(v) "A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous
power (Vh) of not more than 120 knots CAS [in standard sea
level atmospheric conditions]."
(vi) "A maximum operation altitude of not more than 10 000 feet."
Raisons :
1. La sous catégorie LSA n'apporte rien par rapport à la VLA mais
complique la lecture et la future application du texte.
2. La définition d'un aéronef LSA est incluse dans la définition d'un aéronef
VLA. Or, l'ASTM est très similaire au CS VLA, il n'y a donc pas dans les faits
d'allègement significatif supplémentaire,
3. La définition retenue dans le cadre de la NPA pour un aéronef LSA n'est
pas la même que celle retenue par la FAA (Vs non conforme, pas de limite de
Vp, pas de limite d'altitude d'exploitation, etc...)
4. L'ASTM couvrirait donc en Europe des aéronefs ayant une énergie plus
importante en Europe qu'aux USA, ce qui parait pour le moins curieux.
5. La référence à l'ASTM F2245 sous entend la prise et compte et
l'acception de toutes les autres ASTM auxquels l'ASTM F2245 fait appel
notamment au niveau des hélices, équipements, etc... et cela peut avoir des
implications non connues à ce jour.
6. Il me semble que les implications colossales d'une telle décision n'ont
pas été bien appréhendées par l'EASA.
7. Il n'y a pas de définition des caractéristiques des aéronefs dans l'ASTM
F2245 (masse, Vso, etc.). La limitation à 600kg et 45kts de Vs vient de la
FAA.
8. Le succès de la LSA américaine est le fait qu'il s'agit d'une certification
déclarative. Ce n'est pas le cas dans le cadre de la NPA. Le niveau de
difficulté de l'ASTM étant identique à celui d'une CS VLA, il n'y a donc pas
d'allégement réel,
9. Un autre allègement de la LSA américaine est la licence de pilote. Or
dans le NPA, le LSA est un aéronef à part entière. Il n'y a donc pas
d'allégement sur ce point.
10. La création d'une catégorie à 600kg avait été stigmatisée par de
nombreuses fédérations d'ULM en raison de la confusion possible avec
l'ULM à 472.5kg. La réapparition de cette notion de LSA dans ce texte
est donc un risque à terme pour les ULM d'aujourd'hui qui bénéficie d'un
régime d'homologation encore bien plus souple que l'ELA et dont le
Page 403 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
niveau de sécurité est aujourd'hui prouvé.
En résumé, il n'y a aucun avantage a constituer de cette manière explicite
cette catégorie (qui est de fait déjà dans l'ELA1) et il y a plusieurs risques
majeurs pour l'avenir (notamment vis-à-vis des aéronefs aujourd'hui en
annexe 2).
1st proposal:
Dyn'Aéro proposes to eradicate the CS LSA and therefore any explicit
references within the NPA 2008-07 (including in the explanatory note).
OR, 2nd proposal :
Insofar as the code ASTM F2245 would be used as a reference, the alignment
of definitions EASA with the FAA ones, which means:
1.1 replacement LSA paragraph 1 (ii)
(ii) "A maximum stalling speed in the landing configuration (VS0) of not more
than 45 knots CAS at the aircraft's maximum certificated Take-Off Mass and
most critical center of gravity."
by this paragraph :
(ii) "A maximum speed stalling in clean configuration (VS1) of not more than
45 knots at the aircraft's maximum certificated Take-Off Mass and most critical
center of gravity."
1.2 and the addition of paragraphs LSA 1 (v) and (vi):
(v) "A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power (Vh)
of not more than 120 knots CAS [in standard sea level atmospheric
conditions]."
(vi) "A maximum altitude operation of not more than 10 000 feet."
Reasons:
1. The sub-category LSA adds nothing compared to the VLA but
complicates the reading and the future application of the text.
2. The definition of an aircraft LSA is included in the definition of an
aircraft VLA. However, the ASTM is very similar to CS VLA, so there is
not actually significant additional relief,
3. The definition used in connection with the NPA for an LSA aircraft is not
the same as that adopted by the FAA (non-compliant Vs, no limit for the
Vp, no limit concerning the operating altitude, etc...)
4. The ASTM would therefore cover aircraft in Europe with a greater
energy in Europe than in the USA, which seems particularly curious.
5. The reference to ASTM F2245 intends to take in and acceptance and all
other ASTM which ASTM F2245 appealed especially at the level of
propellers, equipment, etc... and this may have implications not known
so far.
6. It seems to me that the colossal implications of such decision had not
been well understood by EASA.
7. There is no definition of the characteristics of aircraft in ASTM F2245
Page 404 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
(mass, Vso, etc.). The limit of 600kg and 45kts for Vs comes from the
FAA.
8. The success of the U.S. LSA is the fact that this is a declarative
certification. This is not the case under the NPA. The level of difficulty of
the ASTM is identical to the CS VLA, so there is no real relief,
9. Another relief of the LSA is the American pilot's licence. But in the NPA,
the LSA is a fully-fledged aircraft. There is no relief on this item.
10. The creation of a 600kg category had been stigmatized by many ULM
federations because of the possible confusion with ULM at 472.5kg. The
resurgence of this notion of LSA in this text is therefore a future risk for
microlights which today enjoys an approval scheme even more flexible
than the ELA and whose the safety level is proven nowadays.
In summary, there is no advantage to create explicitly this category (which is
already in the ELA1) and there are several major risks for the future
(particularly concerning aircrafts today register under the Annex 2).
response Partially accepted
Please refer to CRD Part I paragraph 8.
The resulting text of CS-LSA is attached to this CRD.
comment 134 comment by: Féderation Française de Planeurs Ultralégers motorisés
Concerning the creation of the subclass LSA the purpose of which is to facilitate
the work of the European manufacturers already exporting in the USA, FFPLUM
finds curious deterioration about definition introduced into the NPA. Actually,
the American LSA class is strictly limited to a minimum stall speed without
flaps of 45 kts and to a 120 kt maximum full power level speed. Also prohibited
are the use of variable pitch propeller and retractable undercarriage.
If exonerating "European LSA" of this limitations, which justify the lightened
regulation granted to this new class of aircraft by the FAA, the Agency does not
achieve the goal that it is setted when creating this subclass.
If it really want to achieve this goal and support European manufacturer,
FFPLUM recommend to adopt the original definition of the FAA LSA category
without any change
response Not accepted
CS-LSA aeroplanes are certified by the Agency under the ELA process. This
process is a certification by the Authority and not a declaration from the
manufacturer. In that context, the Agency believes that it is possible to
envisage more performing aircraft. This extended scope has been supported by
other commentators.
comment 219 comment by: DynAero Iberica
Commentaires sur le CS LSA / Comments on CS LSA
1er proposition :
DynAero Ibérica propose la suppression de la CS LSA et a fortiori de toutes
mentions explicites s'y rapportant présentes dans la NPA 2008-07 (y compris
dans la note explicative).
OU, 2ème proposition :
dans la mesure où le code ASTM F2245 serait utilisé comme référence,
Page 405 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
l'alignement des définitions de l'EASA avec celle de la FAA, ce qui se traduit par
:
1.1 le remplacement du paragraphe LSA 1 (ii)
(ii) "A maximum stalling speed in the landing configuration (VS0) of not more
than 45 knots CAS at the aircraft's maximum certificated Take-Off Mass and
most critical centre of gravity."
par celui-ci :
(ii) "A maximum stalling speed in clean configuration (VS1) of not more than
45 knots at the aircraft's maximum certificated Take-Off Mass and most critical
centre of gravity."
• 1.2 et l'ajout des paragraphes LSA 1 (v) et (vi):
(v) "A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power (Vh)
of not more than 120 knots CAS [in standard sea level atmospheric
conditions]."
(vi) "A maximum operation altitude of not more than 10 000 feet."
Raisons :
1. La sous catégorie LSA n'apporte rien par rapport à la VLA mais complique la
lecture et la future application du texte.
2. La définition d'un aéronef LSA est incluse dans la définition d'un aéronef
VLA. Or, l'ASTM est très similaire au CS VLA, il n'y a donc pas dans les faits
d'allègement significatif supplémentaire,
3. La définition retenue dans le cadre de la NPA pour un aéronef LSA n'est pas
la même que celle retenue par la FAA (Vs non conforme, pas de limite de Vp,
pas de limite d'altitude d'exploitation, etc...)
4. L'ASTM couvrirait donc en Europe des aéronefs ayant une énergie plus
importante en Europe qu'aux USA, ce qui parait pour le moins curieux.
5. La référence à l'ASTM F2245 sous entend la prise et compte et l'acception
de toutes les autres ASTM auxquels l'ASTM F2245 fait appel notamment au
niveau des hélices, équipements, etc... et cela peut avoir des implications non
connues à ce jour.
6. Il me semble que les implications colossales d'une telle décision n'ont pas
été bien appréhendées par l'EASA.
7. Il n'y a pas de définition des caractéristiques des aéronefs dans l'ASTM
F2245 (masse, Vso, etc.). La limitation à 600kg et 45kts de Vs vient de la FAA.
8. Le succès de la LSA américaine est le fait qu'il s'agit d'une certification
déclarative. Ce n'est pas le cas dans le cadre de la NPA. Le niveau de difficulté
de l'ASTM étant identique à celui d'une CS VLA, il n'y a donc pas d'allégement
réel,
9. Un autre allègement de la LSA américaine est la licence de pilote. Or dans le
NPA, le LSA est un aéronef à part entière. Il n'y a donc pas d'allégement sur ce
point.
10. La création d'une catégorie à 600kg avait été stigmatisée par de
nombreuses fédérations d'ULM en raison de la confusion possible avec l'ULM à
472.5kg. La réapparition de cette notion de LSA dans ce texte est donc un
risque à terme pour les ULM d'aujourd'hui qui bénéficie d'un régime
d'homologation encore bien plus souple que l'ELA et dont le niveau de sécurité
est aujourd'hui prouvé.
En résumé, il n'y a aucun avantage a constituer de cette manière explicite
cette catégorie (qui est de fait déjà dans l'ELA1) et il y a plusieurs risques
majeurs pour l'avenir (notamment vis-à-vis des aéronefs aujourd'hui en
annexe 2).
Page 406 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
1st proposal:
DynAero Ibérica proposes to eradicate the CS LSA and therefore any explicit
references within the NPA 2008-07 (including in the explanatory note).
OR, 2nd proposal :
Insofar as the code ASTM F2245 would be used as a reference, the alignment
of definitions EASA with the FAA ones, which means:
1.1 replacement LSA paragraph 1 (ii)
(ii) "A maximum stalling speed in the landing configuration (VS0) of not more
than 45 knots CAS at the aircraft's maximum certificated Take-Off Mass and
most critical center of gravity."
by this paragraph :
(ii) "A maximum speed stalling in clean configuration (VS1) of not more than
45 knots at the aircraft's maximum certificated Take-Off Mass and most critical
center of gravity."
1.2 and the addition of paragraphs LSA 1 (v) and (vi):
(v) "A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power (Vh)
of not more than 120 knots CAS [in standard sea level atmospheric
conditions]."
(vi) "A maximum altitude operation of not more than 10 000 feet."
Reasons:
1. The sub-category LSA adds nothing compared to the VLA but complicates
the reading and the future application of the text.
2. The definition of an aircraft LSA is included in the definition of an aircraft
VLA. However, the ASTM is very similar to CS VLA, so there is not actually
significant additional relief,
3. The definition used in connection with the NPA for an LSA aircraft is not the
same as that adopted by the FAA (non-compliant Vs, no limit for the Vp, no
limit concerning the operating altitude, etc...)
4. The ASTM would therefore cover aircraft in Europe with a greater energy in
Europe than in the USA, which seems particularly curious.
5. The reference to ASTM F2245 intends to take in and acceptance and all
other ASTM which ASTM F2245 appealed especially at the level of propellers,
equipment, etc... and this may have implications not known so far.
6. It seems to me that the colossal implications of such decision had not been
well understood by EASA.
7. There is no definition of the characteristics of aircraft in ASTM F2245 (mass,
Vso, etc.). The limit of 600kg and 45kts for Vs comes from the FAA.
8. The success of the U.S. LSA is the fact that this is a declarative certification.
This is not the case under the NPA. The level of difficulty of the ASTM is
identical to the CS VLA, so there is no real relief,
9. Another relief of the LSA is the American pilot's licence. But in the NPA, the
LSA is a fully-fledged aircraft. There is no relief on this item.
10. The creation of a 600kg category had been stigmatized by many ULM
federations because of the possible confusion with ULM at 472.5kg. The
resurgence of this notion of LSA in this text is therefore a future risk for
microlights which today enjoys an approval scheme even more flexible than
the ELA and whose the safety level is proven nowadays.
In summary, there is no advantage to create explicitly this category (which is
already in the ELA1) and there are several major risks for the future
(particularly concerning aircrafts today register under the Annex 2).
response Partially accepted
Page 407 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Please refer to CRD Part I paragraph 8.
The resulting text of CS-LSA is attached to this CRD.
comment 280 comment by: Klaus Erger
response Noted
Comment 18
Page 42 - B. Draft Rules - II. New Certification Specifications for Light Sport
Aeroplanes - Subpart A - General - LSA 3 Aeroplane categories
Comment 2 also applies here
Comment 19
Page 42 - B. Draft Rules - II. New Certification Specifications for Light Sport
Aeroplanes - Subpart A - General - LSA 3 Aeroplane categories
Negative. A limitation to VFR day is considered as not acceptable, as the
standard offers well suitable standards also for VFR night operation and soon
IFR operation. There is no real reason visible why this can not be accepted as
well in EASA world, like in FAA world.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not mean,
that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or IFR. This still
requires the proper license with endorsement. Also, requirements to equipment
for operation at night and under IFR are also not overruled. So allowing
principally the usage of the aircraft in this conditions, under the limitations of
the ELA concept, does not pose a factual reduction in level of safety. This can
be clearly verified through the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 8.
comment 285 comment by: Drive & Fly Luftfahrt GmbH
Comments on CS LSA
Drive and Fly proposes to eradicate the CS LSA and therefore any explicit
references within the NPA 2008-07 (including in the explanatory note).
Reasons:
1. The sub-category LSA adds nothing compared to the VLA but
complicates the reading and the future application of the text.
2. The definition of an aircraft LSA is included in the definition of an
aircraft VLA. However, the ASTM is very similar to CS VLA, so there is
not actually significant additional relief,
3. The definition used in connection with the NPA for an LSA aircraft is not
the same as that adopted by the FAA (non-compliant Vs, no limit for the
Vp, no limit concerning the operating altitude, etc...)
4. The ASTM would therefore cover aircraft in Europe with a greater
energy in Europe than in the USA, which seems particularly curious.
5. The success of the U.S. LSA is the fact that this is a declarative
certification. This is not the case under the NPA. The level of difficulty of
the ASTM is identical to the CS VLA, so there is no real relief,
6. The creation of a 600kg category had been stigmatized by many ULM
federations because of the possible confusion with ULM at 472.5kg. The
resurgence of this notion of LSA in this text is therefore a future risk for
Page 408 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
microlights which today enjoys an approval scheme even more flexible
than the ELA and whose the safety level is proven nowadays.
In summary, there is no advantage to create explicitly this category (which is
already in the ELA1) and there are several major risks for the future
(particularly concerning aircrafts today register under the Annex 2).
response Partially accepted
Please refer to CRD Part I paragraph 8.
The resulting text of CS-LSA is attached to this CRD.
comment 474 comment by: Tegelbeckers
response Noted
Comment 18
Page 42 - B. Draft Rules - II. New Certification Specifications for Light Sport
Aeroplanes - Subpart A - General - LSA 3 Aeroplane categories
Comment 2 also applies here
Comment 19
Page 42 - B. Draft Rules - II. New Certification Specifications for Light Sport
Aeroplanes - Subpart A - General - LSA 3 Aeroplane categories
Negative. A limitation to VFR day is considered as not acceptable, as the
standard offers well suitable standards also for VFR night operation and soon
IFR operation. There is no real reason visible why this can not be accepted as
well in EASA world, like in FAA world.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not mean,
that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or IFR. This still
requires the proper license with endorsement. Also, requirements to equipment
for operation at night and under IFR are also not overruled. So allowing
principally the usage of the aircraft in this conditions, under the limitations of
the ELA concept, does not pose a factual reduction in level of safety. This can
be clearly verified through the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 8.
comment 524 comment by: Austro Control GmbH
response Noted
Comment:
This NPA is not identical to the US LSA (CAS 120, fix prop, fix gear). Therefore
the transfer of aircraft to and from the US market is not possible without
technical changes. This is a big disadvantage/burden for the industry and
owner.
Proposal:
Adopt the US LSA without any differences or initiate an harmonization process
with the FAA.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 8 (CS-LSA) and Paragraph 10 (harmonisation
with FAA).
comment 690 comment by: networxx Ltd.
view of a privat pilot:
Page 409 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
as I am flying since over 20 years and I had been trained on (old) Cesnas I am
very excited that Europe will become the LSA class.
For more than over 10 years ago me and my flying-friends have changed to
the high-end European ULs.
Not only the cost side is for us important - what makes that class sexy is the
flexibility: many small landing possibilities etc. Therfore I would like to see the
chance to fly at night with the LSA class as well as I wish to use an autopilot!
The offerd airplanes in the market can easy secure that demand.
If EASA keeps the LSA regulations similar easy to the UL class I see a new big
demand of flying activities in Europe. Therefore I plan to set up a charter
company for high-end LSAs and I am looking very much forward to invest that
money.
regards Andreas von Veltheim, Berlin
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 2 (Task BR.010 to explore how to go beyond
the present proposals), and paragraph 8 (CS-LSA).
comment 720 comment by: Europe Air Sports, VP
response Noted
At present, the EASA only plans to develop new specification for Light Sport
Aeroplanes. We recommend- for the benefit of future flexibility - to expand
this chapter to Aircraft. It is assumed that the present ELA process will also be
applied to sailplanes, balloons and other aerial vehicles but it would make it
clear that other than aeroplane specifications could be developed in the future.
This would add flexibility and greatly enhance the options for technical
progress and innovation.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 2 (criteria for ELA 1 and ELA 2).
B. Draft Rules - II. New Certification Specifications for Light Sport
Aeroplanes - Subpart A - General
comment 251 comment by: Ronald MEYER
p. 42
Comment 12
Page 42 - B. Draft Rules - II. New Certification Specifications for Light
Sport Aeroplanes - Subpart A - General
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high,
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
Page 410 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
additional safety. As a fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, than could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries, where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II), it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4 for POA.
For DOA,
Acceptance of designers that “hold” an ASTM or ISO qualification cannot be
seen as an “approved” alternative to a DOA. These “approvals” are not issued
and controlled as required by the Basic Regulation. It would however be
possible to benefit both in content and time from the implementation of these
standards by showing that the implemented procedures comply (partly) with
the DOA requirements of Part-21 Subpart J. This could be reflected in an AMC
to be developed under task MDM.032 (d).
comment 793 comment by: Herbert HERGET
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high,
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.=2 0 There is no
connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production quality
system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level of safety
achieved in operation. Th erefore, based on this explicit experience, any rising
of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with additional
safety. As a fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient market
self control, than could be achieved by Agency control. This is the background
for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with the EASA DOA and
POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO qualifications of
companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing. In all countries,
where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt aircrafts,
Annex II), it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a reason for
less safety and can even improve safety.
response Not accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 4 for POA.
For DOA,
Acceptance of designers that “hold” an ASTM or ISO qualification cannot be
seen as an “approved” alternative to a DOA. These “approvals” are not issued
and controlled as required by the Basic Regulation. It would however be
possible to benefit both in content and time from the implementation of these
standards by showing that the implemented procedures comply (partly) with
the DOA requirements of Part-21 Subpart J. This could be reflected in an AMC
to be developed under task MDM.032 (d).
Page 411 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 794 comment by: Herbert HERGET
response Noted
Negative. A limitation to VFR day is considered as not acceptable, as the
standard offers well suitable sta ndards also for aerobatics, VFR night operation
and soon IFR operation. There is no reason visible why this can not be
accepted as well in EASA world, like in FAA world. Particularly the limitation to
"non-aerobatic" use is not comprehensible. Just as aerobatics are defined as a
"sport", an aeroplane category with the term "sport" in its name should not
ignore this. It should be in responsibility of the design organization to define
the aircraft as capable for aerobatics. This does not mean that every pilot can
operate the aircraft in aerobatics, night VFR or IFR without more ado. This still
requires the proper upgrade or license with endorsement. Also, requirements
to equipment for operation at night and under IFR are also not overruled. So
allowing principally the usage of the aircraft in these conditions, under the
limitations of the ELA concept, does not pose a factual reduction in level of
safety. This can be clearly verified through the 3 years plus LSA experience in
USA.
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 2 and paragraph 8.
B. Draft Rules - II. New Certification Specifications for Light Sport
Aeroplanes - Subpart A - General - LSA 1 Applicability
comment 19 comment by: SHVL Chocen
response Accepted
p. 42
Subpart A - general
.............
Light Sport Aeroplane complies with the following criteria:
(i) A Maximum Take - Off Mass of not more than 600kg for aeroplane not
intended for operation on water or 650 kg for aeroplane intended for operation
on ground and water (amphibia)
SHVL is just building a LSA amphibia and feels, that the increased weight limit
for this category in ASTM Standard is rational. Let us avoid repeating the
„Heavy Ultralights" situation, when the 450kg MTOM limit was complied with
only when the occupants weight was 60 kg each with 20 l of fuel in tanks!
The statistics research carried here among 68 amateur pilots some years ago
showed, that 60% of them fall into the mass range 81-90 kg!
Agreed: text will be modified along those lines.
comment 47 comment by: UL-Flyer
Use the chance by introducing a new standard and include basic saftey
features in the specification which are common since years for every car
manucfactuar such as :
Headrests in case of a crash will give high additional passive savtey.
Airbags; There are systems on the Market which are included in the
seatbelts already.
Furthermore is the Ballistic Saftey System like specified in Ultralight Aircrafts
another saftey system which safed already hundreds of pilots life in case of
loosing control during flight.
Page 412 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Add all these features to the MTOW like it is done in the UL's for the Ballistic
System.
Regards
Uwe Knicker
These proposals are outside the scope of this NPA. The Agency will consider
addressing such items under a separate rulemaking tasks.
comment 187 comment by: Ingmar Hedblom
response Accepted
The development of a Certification Specification for Light Sport Aeroplanes is
highly supported and especially that the ASTM standard is suggested as the
airworthiness code and that there is an almost identical definition as the FAA
one.
One suggestion is that 650kg MTOM should be allowed for seaplane
configurations like for the FAA.
Agreed: text will be modified along those lines.
comment 399 comment by: Ronald MEYER
Issue of a "special airworthiness certificate (SAC)" according to FAA-LSA
procedure instead of a type certification (TC) for CS-LSA. In return, criteria can
also be adapted to FAA-LSA.
response Not accepted
Please refer to CRD Part I paragraph 2.
comment 465 comment by: Ronald MEYER
FAA-LSA class is strictly limited to a minimum stall speed without flaps to 45
kts and to a 120 kts maximum full power level speed. Also prohibited are the
use of variable pitch propellers and retractable gears. If exonerating CS-LSA of
these limitations, which justify the lightened regulation granted to this new
class of aircraft by the FAA, this .will be an argument not to grant the same
level of simplification to CS-LSA in Europe.
response Not accepted
The LSA aeroplanes are subject to the ELA proces that lead to certification. In
that context extending the scope of CS-LSA was found acceptable.
B. Draft Rules - II. New Certification Specifications for Light Sport
Aeroplanes - Subpart A - General - LSA 3 Aeroplane categories
comment 120 comment by: Ultraleicht-Flugverein Saar-Pfalz e.V.
p. 42
Negative. A limitation to VFR day is considered as not acceptable, as the
standard offers well suitable standards also for VFR night operation and soon
IFR operation. There is no real reason visible why this can not be accepted as
Page 413 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
well in EASA world, like in FAA world.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not mean,
that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or IFR. This still
requires the proper license with endorsement. Also, requirements to equipment
for operation at night and under IFR are also not overruled. So allowing
principally the usage of the aircraft in this conditions, under the limitations of
the ELA concept, does not pose a factual reduction in level of safety. This can
be clearly verified through the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 2 (criteria for ELA 1 and ELA 2) and
paragraph 8 (CS-LSA).
comment 128 comment by: Ultraleicht-Flugverein Saar-Pfalz e.V.
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
response Not accepted
For POA please see CRD part I paragraph 4.
For DOA:
Acceptance of designers that “hold” an ASTM or ISO qualification cannot be
seen as an “approved” alternative to a DOA. These “approvals” are not issued
and controlled as required by the Basic Regulation. It would however be
possible to benefit both in content and time from the implementation of these
standards by showing that the implemented procedures comply (partly) with
the DOA requirements of Part-21 Subpart J. This could be reflected in an AMC
to be developed under task MDM.032 (d).
comment 131 comment by: Ultraleicht-Flugverein Saar-Pfalz e.V.
Negative.
A limitation to "non-aerobatic" is considered as not acceptable. There is no real
reason visible why this can not be accepted as well in EASA world, like in FAA
world. This can be clearly verified through the 3 years plus LSA experience in
USA.
It should be in responsibility of the design organization to define the aircraft as
capable for aerobatics. Even aerobatic is defined as "sport". An aeroplane
category with the term "sport" in its name cannot ignore this.
Page 414 of 446

esponse Partially accepted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 2 (criteria for ELA 1 and ELA 2) and
paragraph 8 (CS-LSA).
comment 178 comment by: Alexander Eich
Negative. A limitation to VFR day is considered as not acceptable, as the
standard offers well suitable standards also for VFR night operation and soon
IFR operation. There is no real reason visible why this can not be accepted as
well in EASA world, like in FAA world.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not mean,
that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or IFR. This still
requires the proper license with endorsement. Also, requirements to equipment
for operation at night and under IFR are also not overruled. So allowing
principally the usage of the aircraft in this conditions, under the limitations of
the ELA concept, does not pose a factual reduction in level of safety. This can
be clearly verified through the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 2 (criteria for ELA 1 and ELA 2) and
paragraph 8 (CS-LSA).
comment 252 comment by: Ronald MEYER
Comment 13
Page 42 - B. Draft Rules - II. New Certification Specifications for Light
Sport Aeroplanes - Subpart A - General - LSA 3 Aeroplane categories
Negative. A limitation to VFR day is considered as not acceptable, as the
standard offers well suitable standards also for aerobatics, VFR night operation
and soon IFR operation. There is no reason visible why this can not be
accepted as well in EASA world, like in FAA world. Particularly the limitation to
"non-aerobatic" use is not comprehensible. Just as aerobatics are defined as a
"sport", an aeroplane category with the term "sport" in its name should not
ignore this. It should be in responsibility of the design organization to define
the aircraft as capable for aerobatics. This does not mean that every pilot can
operate the aircraft in aerobatics, night VFR or IFR without more ado. This still
requires the proper upgrade or license with endorsement. Also, requirements
to equipment for operation at night and under IFR are also not overruled. So
allowing principally the usage of the aircraft in these conditions, under the
limitations of the ELA concept, does not pose a factual reduction in level of
safety. This can be clearly verified through the 3 years plus LSA experience in
USA.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 2 (criteria for ELA 1 and ELA 2) and
paragraph 8 (CS-LSA).
comment 256 comment by: Gorden WIEGELS
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
Page 415 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
response Not accepted
For POA please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
For DOA:
Acceptance of designers that “hold” an ASTM or ISO qualification cannot be
seen as an “approved” alternative to a DOA. These “approvals” are not issued
and controlled as required by the Basic Regulation. It would however be
possible to benefit both in content and time from the implementation of these
standards by showing that the implemented procedures comply (partly) with
the DOA requirements of Part-21 Subpart J. This could be reflected in an AMC
to be developed under task MDM.032 (d).
comment 267 comment by: Gorden WIEGELS
Negative. A limitation to VFR day is considered as not acceptable, as the
standard offers well suitable standards also for VFR night operation and soon
IFR operation. There is no real reason visible why this can not be accepted as
well in EASA world, like in FAA world.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not mean,
that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or IFR. This still
requires the proper license with endorsement. Also, requirements to equipment
for operation at night and under IFR are also not overruled. So allowing
principally the usage of the aircraft in this conditions, under the limitations of
the ELA concept, does not pose a factual reduction in level of safety. This can
be clearly verified through the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 2 (criteria for ELA 1 and ELA 2) and
paragraph 8 (CS-LSA).
comment 304 comment by: Karg
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights -
mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world - in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
Page 416 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are already flying (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II), it is proven that deregulation in general is not reason for
less safety, much more it can even improve safety.
response Not accepted
For POA please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
For DOA:
Acceptance of designers that “hold” an ASTM or ISO qualification cannot be
seen as an “approved” alternative to a DOA. These “approvals” are not issued
and controlled as required by the Basic Regulation. It would however be
possible to benefit both in content and time from the implementation of these
standards by showing that the implemented procedures comply (partly) with
the DOA requirements of Part-21 Subpart J. This could be reflected in an AMC
to be developed under task MDM.032 (d).
comment 305 comment by: Karg
Negative. A limitation to VFR day is considered as not acceptable, as the
standard offers well suitable standards also for VFR night operation and soon
IFR operation. There is no real reason visible why this can not be accepted as
well in EASA world, like in FAA world.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not mean,
that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or IFR. This still
requires the proper license with endorsement. Also, requirements to equipment
for operation at night and under IFR are also not overruled. So allowing
principally the usage of the aircraft in this conditions, under the limitations of
the ELA concept, does not pose a factual reduction in level of safety. This can
be clearly verified through the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 2 (criteria for ELA 1 and ELA 2) and
paragraph 8 (CS-LSA).
comment 326 comment by: TECNAM
Comment 2 also applies here
response Not accepted
Task BR.010 may allow to go beyond what is proposed here (please see
paragraph 2 of CRD Part I).
comment 327 comment by: TECNAM
Page 417 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Negative. A limitation to VFR day is considered as not acceptable, as the
standard offers well suitable standards also for VFR night operation and soon
IFR operation. There is no real reason visible why this can not be accepted as
well in EASA world, like in FAA world.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not mean,
that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or IFR. This still
requires the proper license with endorsement. Also, requirements to equipment
for operation at night and under IFR are also not overruled. So allowing
principally the usage of the aircraft in this conditions, under the limitations of
the ELA concept, does not pose a factual reduction in level of safety. This can
be clearly verified through the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 2 (criteria for ELA 1 and ELA 2) and
paragraph 8 (CS-LSA).
comment 362 comment by: O. Reinhardt / Flightdesign
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
This comment is also valid for several other locations as linked, and for the
Who does what- Table, there section "organisational approval" (not possible to
link exactly)
response Not accepted
For POA please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
For DOA:
Acceptance of designers that “hold” an ASTM or ISO qualification cannot be
seen as an “approved” alternative to a DOA. These “approvals” are not issued
and controlled as required by the Basic Regulation. It would however be
possible to benefit both in content and time from the implementation of these
standards by showing that the implemented procedures comply (partly) with
the DOA requirements of Part-21 Subpart J. This could be reflected in an AMC
to be developed under task MDM.032 (d).
Page 418 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 374 comment by: O. Reinhardt / Flightdesign
Negative. A limitation to VFR day is considered as not acceptable, as the
standard offers well suitable standards also for VFR night operation and soon
IFR operation. There is no real reason visible why this can not be accepted as
well in EASA world, like in FAA world.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not mean,
that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or IFR. This still
requires the proper license with endorsement. Also, requirements to equipment
for operation at night and under IFR are also not overruled. So allowing
principally the usage of the aircraft in this conditions, under the limitations of
the ELA concept, does not pose a factual reduction in level of safety. This can
be clearly verified through the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 2 (criteria for ELA 1 and ELA 2) and
paragraph 8 (CS-LSA).
comment 390 comment by: Thomas Wendt
Comment 18
Page 42 - B. Draft Rules - II. New Certification Specifications for Light
Sport Aeroplanes - Subpart A - General - LSA 3 Aeroplane categories
Comment 2 also applies here
Comment 19
Page 42 - B. Draft Rules - II. New Certification Specifications for Light
Sport Aeroplanes - Subpart A - General - LSA 3 Aeroplane categories
Negative. A limitation to VFR day is considered as not acceptable, as the
standard offers well suitable standards also for VFR night operation and soon
IFR operation. There is no real reason visible why this can not be accepted as
well in EASA world, like in FAA world.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not mean,
that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or IFR. This still
requires the proper license with endorsement. Also, requirements to equipment
for operation at night and under IFR are also not overruled. So allowing
principally the usage of the aircraft in this conditions, under the limitations of
the ELA concept, does not pose a factual reduction in level of safety. This can
be clearly verified through the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 2 (criteria for ELA 1 and ELA 2) and
paragraph 8 (CS-LSA).
Task BR.010 may allow to go beyond what is proposed here (please see
paragraph 2 of CRD Part I).
comment 400 comment by: Flight Design GmbH Matthias Betsch CEO
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
Page 419 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
response Not accepted
For POA please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
For DOA:
Acceptance of designers that “hold” an ASTM or ISO qualification cannot be
seen as an “approved” alternative to a DOA. These “approvals” are not issued
and controlled as required by the Basic Regulation. It would however be
possible to benefit both in content and time from the implementation of these
standards by showing that the implemented procedures comply (partly) with
the DOA requirements of Part-21 Subpart J. This could be reflected in an AMC
to be developed under task MDM.032 (d).
comment 419 comment by: Flight Design GmbH Matthias Betsch CEO
Negative. A limitation to VFR day is considered as not acceptable, as the
standard offers well suitable standards also for VFR night operation and soon
IFR operation. There is no real reason visible why this can not be accepted as
well in EASA world, like in FAA world.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not mean,
that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or IFR. This still
requires the proper license with endorsement. Also, requirements to equipment
for operation at night and under IFR are also not overruled. So allowing
principally the usage of the aircraft in this conditions, under the limitations of
the ELA concept, does not pose a factual reduction in level of safety. This can
be clearly verified through the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 2 (criteria for ELA 1 and ELA 2) and
paragraph 8 (CS-LSA).
comment 463 comment by: www.fascination-pilots.de
Negative. A limitation to VFR day is considered as not acceptable, as the
standard offers well suitable standards also for VFR night operation and soon
IFR operation. There is no real reason visible why this can not be accepted as
well in EASA world, like in FAA world.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not mean,
Page 420 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or IFR. This still
requires the proper license with endorsement. Also, requirements to equipment
for operation at night and under IFR are also not overruled. So allowing
principally the usage of the aircraft in this conditions, under the limitations of
the ELA concept, does not pose a factual reduction in level of safety. This can
be clearly verified through the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 2 (criteria for ELA 1 and ELA 2) and
paragraph 8 (CS-LSA).
comment 497 comment by: light-wings Oliver Liedmann
Comment 2 also applies here
Negative. A limitation to VFR day is considered as not acceptable, as the
standard offers well suitable standards also for VFR night operation and soon
IFR operation. There is no real reason visible why this can not be accepted as
well in EASA world, like in FAA world.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not mean,
that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or IFR. This still
requires the proper license with endorsement. Also, requirements to equipment
for operation at night and under IFR are also not overruled. So allowing
principally the usage of the aircraft in this conditions, under the limitations of
the ELA concept, does not pose a factual reduction in level of safety. This can
be clearly verified through the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 2 (criteria for ELA 1 and ELA 2) and
paragraph 8 (CS-LSA).
Task BR.010 may allow to go beyond what is proposed here (please see
paragraph 2 of CRD Part I).
comment 518 comment by: aeroklaus
Comment 18
Page 42 - B. Draft Rules - II. New Certification Specifications for Light Sport
Aeroplanes - Subpart A - General - LSA 3 Aeroplane categories
Comment 2 also applies here
response Not accepted
Task BR.010 may allow to go beyond what is proposed here (please see
paragraph 2 of CRD Part I).
comment 519 comment by: aeroklaus
Comment 19
Page 42 - B. Draft Rules - II. New Certification Specifications for Light Sport
Aeroplanes - Subpart A - General - LSA 3 Aeroplane categories
Negative. A limitation to VFR day is considered as not acceptable, as the
standard offers well suitable standards also for VFR night operation and soon
IFR operation. There is no real reason visible why this can not be accepted as
well in EASA world, like in FAA world.
Page 421 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not mean,
that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or IFR. This still
requires the proper license with endorsement. Also, requirements to equipment
for operation at night and under IFR are also not overruled. So allowing
principally the usage of the aircraft in this conditions, under the limitations of
the ELA concept, does not pose a factual reduction in level of safety. This can
be clearly verified through the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 2 (criteria for ELA 1 and ELA 2) and
paragraph 8 (CS-LSA).
comment 598 comment by: klaus M
Comment 18
Page 42 - B. Draft Rules - II. New Certification Specifications for Light Sport
Aeroplanes - Subpart A - General - LSA 3 Aeroplane categories
Comment 2 also applies here
response Not accepted
Task BR.010 may allow to go beyond what is proposed here (please see
paragraph 2 of CRD Part I).
comment 599 comment by: klaus M
Comment 19
Page 42 - B. Draft Rules - II. New Certification Specifications for Light Sport
Aeroplanes - Subpart A - General - LSA 3 Aeroplane categories
Negative. A limitation to VFR day is considered as not acceptable, as the
standard offers well suitable standards also for VFR night operation and soon
IFR operation. There is no real reason visible why this can not be accepted as
well in EASA world, like in FAA world.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not mean,
that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or IFR. This still
requires the proper license with endorsement. Also, requirements to equipment
for operation at night and under IFR are also not overruled. So allowing
principally the usage of the aircraft in this conditions, under the limitations of
the ELA concept, does not pose a factual reduction in level of safety. This can
be clearly verified through the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 2 (criteria for ELA 1 and ELA 2) and
paragraph 8 (CS-LSA).
comment 612 comment by: Cessna Aircraft Company
Negative - the proposal to limit aircraft to "Day VFR" manufacture standards
does not promote safe flying.
Proposal 1: Limiting the certification of a LSA 3 aircraft to "VFR day" operation
only is counter productive to flight safety. The pilot flying the aircraft may be
limited to "VFR day" flight only, but the aircraft manufacturer needs the
flexibility to produce an aircraft with the required safety and operating
equipment to fly at night and in IFR operations. One of the leading causes of
Page 422 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
fatal general aviation accidents is a pilots inability to fly or recover an aircraft
after entering clouds, fog, heavy rain, or other like weather condition. Not
allowing an aircraft to be equipped with basic night and IFR equipment could
quickly translate to increased fatal accident rates in Europe.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 2 (criteria for ELA 1 and ELA 2) and
paragraph 8 (CS-LSA).
comment 643 comment by: Martin Josef Warken
Comment 18
Page 42 - B. Draft Rules - II. New Certification Specifications for Light
Sport Aeroplanes - Subpart A - General - LSA 3 Aeroplane categories
Comment 2 also applies here
response Not accepted
Task BR.010 may allow to go beyond what is proposed here (please see
paragraph 2 of CRD Part I).
comment 644 comment by: Martin Josef Warken
Comment 19
Page 42 - B. Draft Rules - II. New Certification Specifications for Light
Sport Aeroplanes - Subpart A - General - LSA 3 Aeroplane categories
Negative. A limitation to VFR day is considered as not acceptable, as the
standard offers well suitable standards also for VFR night operation and soon
IFR operation. There is no real reason visible why this can not be accepted as
well in EASA world, like in FAA world.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not mean,
that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or IFR. This still
requires the proper license with endorsement. Also, requirements to equipment
for operation at night and under IFR are also not overruled. So allowing
principally the usage of the aircraft in this conditions, under the limitations of
the ELA concept, does not pose a factual reduction in level of safety. This can
be clearly verified through the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 2 (criteria for ELA 1 and ELA 2) and
paragraph 8 (CS-LSA).
comment 671 comment by: EAA
Page 42 - B. Draft Rules - II. New Certification Specifications for Light Sport
Aeroplanes - Subpart A - General - LSA 3 Aeroplane categories
Negative - the proposal to limit aircraft to "Day VFR" manufacture
standards does not promote safe flying.
Proposal 1: Limiting the certification of a LSA 3 aircraft to "VFR day" operation
only is counter productive to flight safety. The pilot flying the aircraft may be
limited to "VFR day" flight only, but the aircraft manufacturer needs the
Page 423 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
flexibility to produce an aircraft with the required safety and operating
equipment to fly at night and in IFR operations. One of the leading causes of
fatal general aviation accidents is a pilot's inability to fly or recover an aircraft
after entering clouds, fog, heavy rain, or other like weather conditions. Not
allowing an aircraft to be equipped with basic night and IFR equipment could
quickly translate to increased fatal accident rates in Europe. Manufacturers
need to retain the ability to produce aircraft equipped to fly at night and in IFR
conditions.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 2 (criteria for ELA 1 and ELA 2) and
paragraph 8 (CS-LSA).
comment 719 comment by: procomposite
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
response Not accepted
For POA please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
For DOA:
Acceptance of designers that “hold” an ASTM or ISO qualification cannot be
seen as an “approved” alternative to a DOA. These “approvals” are not issued
and controlled as required by the Basic Regulation. It would however be
possible to benefit both in content and time from the implementation of these
standards by showing that the implemented procedures comply (partly) with
the DOA requirements of Part-21 Subpart J. This could be reflected in an AMC
to be developed under task MDM.032 (d).
comment 743 comment by: Oliver
Based on the explicit experience of the 3 years plus LSA operation in USA, and
based upon the most recent operational experience of advanced microlights
(mostly also sold as LSA in FAA world) in Europe, it can be clearly underlined,
that even at this level of deregulation the level of safety achieved is so high
that it can hold with those as found for Part 23 aircraft.
Page 424 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
There is no connection visible, that a self declaration of design and production
quality system and correctness of results has any negative effect on the level
of safety achieved in operation. Therefore, based on this explicit experience,
any rising of requirements / requirement of approvals can not be argued with
additional safety. As fact, reducing the hurdles leads to a much more efficient
market self control, that could be achieved by Agency control.
This is the background for the comments proposing solutions on how to go with
the EASA DOA and POA approvals by accepting existing ASTM or DIN ISO
qualifications of companies, without further explicit checking or re-auditing.
In all countries where deregulated airplanes are flying already (LSA, homebuilt
aircrafts, Annex II) it is clearly proven that deregulation in general is not a
reason for less safety and can even improve safety.
response Not accepted
For POA please see CRD Part I paragraph 4.
For DOA:
Acceptance of designers that “hold” an ASTM or ISO qualification cannot be
seen as an “approved” alternative to a DOA. These “approvals” are not issued
and controlled as required by the Basic Regulation. It would however be
possible to benefit both in content and time from the implementation of these
standards by showing that the implemented procedures comply (partly) with
the DOA requirements of Part-21 Subpart J. This could be reflected in an AMC
to be developed under task MDM.032 (d).
comment 744 comment by: Oliver
Negative. A limitation to VFR day is considered as not acceptable, as the
standard offers well suitable standards also for VFR night operation and soon
IFR operation. There is no real reason visible why this can not be accepted as
well in EASA world, like in FAA world.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not mean,
that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or IFR. This still
requires the proper license with endorsement. Also, requirements to equipment
for operation at night and under IFR are also not overruled. So allowing
principally the usage of the aircraft in this conditions, under the limitations of
the ELA concept, does not pose a factual reduction in level of safety. This can
be clearly verified through the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 2 (criteria for ELA 1 and ELA 2) and
paragraph 8 (CS-LSA).
comment 768 comment by: Air Marugan
Comment 18
Comment 2 also applies here
response Not accepted
Task BR.010 may allow to go beyond what is proposed here (please see
paragraph 2 of CRD Part I).
Page 425 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
comment 769 comment by: Air Marugan
Comment 19
Negative. A limitation to VFR day is considered as not acceptable, as the
standard offers well suitable standards also for VFR night operation and soon
IFR operation. There is no real reason visible why this can not be accepted as
well in EASA world, like in FAA world.
We are talking here of initial airworthiness. So opening this up does not mean,
that an LPL licensed pilot can operate the aircraft night VFR or IFR. This still
requires the proper license with endorsement. Also, requirements to equipment
for operation at night and under IFR are also not overruled. So allowing
principally the usage of the aircraft in this conditions, under the limitations of
the ELA concept, does not pose a factual reduction in level of safety. This can
be clearly verified through the 3 years plus LSA experience in USA.
response Partially accepted
Please see CRD Part I paragraph 2 (criteria for ELA 1 and ELA 2) and
paragraph 8 (CS-LSA).
B. Draft Rules - II. New Certification Specifications for Light Sport
Aeroplanes - Subpart A - General - LSA 5 Airworthiness code
comment 135 comment by: Féderation Française de Planeurs Ultralégers motorisés
response Noted
p. 42
When it comes to the certification codes ELA1 aircraft could be based on,
FFPlUM draws the attention of the Agency to the very particular nature of the
ASTM system which is proposed as one of the acceptable codes.
It is indeed a private association which establishes its norms from the
proposals of voluntary members. The regulations are accepted by votes in the
majority of two thirds. The technical code that results from this process is into
perpetual evolution and the risk is great to see lobbies pushing for passing
technical requirements whose only virtue will be to draw out competitors.
Given that at this time, all the requirements of the ASTM codes are included in
CS VLA we recommend the suppression of the reference to ASTM code in the
proposals of the Agency unless it adopts the original definition of the FAA LSA
category.
Please see CRD Part I paragraphs 8 and 10.
comment 230 comment by: Lyndhurst Touchdown
Our company proposes deletion of the CS LSA.
Justification:
This sub-class of aircraft appears to offer little or no advantage for designers,
manufacturers or pilots compared to the broader proposal for VLA aircraft.
The definition is substantially different from the American FAA light sport
aircraft category and compliance with European proposals would not benefit
designers or manufacturers on a world stage.
Page 426 of 446

esponse Noted
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
If the proposal were adopted European aircraft would be more tightly
controlled than the US equivalent (assuming that the FAA LSA category can be
considered as being comparable).
The creation of a new 600 kg category could lead to confusion between
existing microlight aircraft and the new category. In some countries microlight
aircraft are already permitted at weights approaching 600 kg.
Existing microlight aircraft production within Europe benefits from a light
regulatory system with good airworthiness credentials. Any attempt to
encompass existing microlight aircraft within the proposed LSA category would
be damaging to existing manufacturers and impose additional unnecessary
costs on this established and generally well regulated aviation group.
Task BR.010 will explore the possibility to go beyond what is proposed in this
CRD. Please see CRD Part I paragraph 2.
comment 441 comment by: P&M Aviation
ASTM standard F2245 only covers "powered fixed wing light sport aircraft" this
requirement needs to also include some provisions for Weight Shift Controlled
aircraft using either F2317 (with some amendments) or BCAR Section S
response Not accepted
Weight shift controlled aircraft should be Annex II aircraft. They are therefore
not in the Agency’s remit. In addition, there is a strong consensus among
stakeholders that Annex II should not be changed.
comment 679 comment by: DGAC France
1a. COMMENT TO :
ü Draft Opinion(s)
Amendment to Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1702/2003 Part 21
1b. AFFECTED PARAGRAPH :
B, part II: new certification specification for LSA
2. COMMENT:
La DGAC-F ne supporte pas le contenu proposé du CS-LSA .
Courtesy translation:
DGAC-F does not support the CS-LSA proposed contents..
3. JUSTIFICATION:
L'ASTM définit un certain nombre de règles techniques qui sont très proches du
code FAR 23 amendement 7.
Toutefois, ces règles peuvent être à tout moment modifiées par ASTM
International sans aucune maîtrise de l'AESA; cela ne va pas dans le sens de
l'égalité de traitement et pourrait avoir des effets imprévus sur la sécurité des
vols. Il nous semble anormal que l'AESA autorise un code qu'elle ne peut pas
contrôler. Notre commentaire contre la création du CS LSA est en cohérence
avec la remarque proposant une AMC 21A.16 A autorisant l'utilisation de la FAR
23 amdt 7 et qui devrait répondre complètement au besoin.
Enfin, il conviendrait de confirmer que les avions certifiés selon la FAR 23 amdt
7 devraient obtenir sans problème leur reconnaissance LSA aux Etats-Unis.
Page 427 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Courtesy translation:
First of all, ASTM defines technical rules that are very close to FAR 23
amendment 7.
Nevertheless, those rules can, at any time, be modified by ASTM International
without any EASA control; this is inconsistent with the objective of equal
treatment and could have unintended effect on the safety level. DGAC believes
that EASA should not use a rule that it does not control. Our comment against
CS LSA creation is consistent with the comment on AMC 21A.16 A authorising
the use of FAR 23 amdt 7 which would perfectly fulfil the need.
Last but not least, the aeroplanes certified with FAR 23 amdt 7 should obtain
without any great difficulties their LSA acceptance in the USA and it should be
confirmed.
response Partially accepted
The proposal relative to FAR 23 amendment 7 is accepted: please see CRD Part
I paragraph 2.
The proposal to delete CS-LSA is not accepted: the Agency believes that this
code introduces proportionate standards for such aeroplanes. It also improves
the harmonisation with the US.
Page 428 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Appendix A – Annex I to CRD 2008-07 Part II
European Aviation Safety Agency
Certification Specifications
for
Light Sport Aeroplanes
CS-LSA
Page 429 of 446

BOOK 1 - AIRWORTHINESS CODE
Subpart A – General
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
CONTENTS
CS–LSA – Light Sport Aeroplanes
Subpart B – Standard Specification for Design and Performance of a Light Sport
Airplane
Subpart C – reserved
Subpart D – reserved
Subpart E – reserved
Subpart F – reserved
Subpart G1 – Operating Limitations and Information
Subpart G2 – Maintenance Limitations and Information
Subpart H – Engines
Subpart I – reserved
Subpart J – Propellers
Subpart K – Airframe Emergency Parachute
BOOK 2 – ACCEPTABLE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE
Page 430 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
EASA Certification Specifications
for
Light Sport Aeroplanes
CS-LSA
Book 1
Certification Specifications
Page 431 of 446

Subpart A - General
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
1 - Applicability
This airworthiness code is applicable to Light Sport Aeroplane that comply with the following
criteria:
(a) A Maximum Take-Off Mass of not more than 600 kg for aeroplanes not intended to be
operated on water or 650 kg for aeroplanes intended to be operated on water.
(b) A maximum stalling speed in the landing configuration (VS0) of not more than 45 knots
CAS at the aircraft’s maximum certificated Take-Off Mass and most critical centre of
gravity.
(c) A maximum seating capacity of no more than two persons, including the pilot.
(d) A single, non-turbine engine fitted with a propeller.
(e) A non-pressurized cabin
2 – Referenced Standards
The ASTM Standards referenced in this specification have to be applied in the following
revision:
F2245-09 Design and Performance of a Light Sport Airplane
F2483-05 Maintenance and the Development of Maintenance Manuals for Light Sport Aircraft
F2746-09 Standard Specification for Pilots’s operating Handbook (POH) for Light Sport Airplane
F2339-06 Design & Manufacture of Reciprocating Spark Ignition Engines
F2506-07 Design and Testing of Fixed-Pitch or Ground Adjustable Propellers
F2538-07a Design & Manufacture of Reciprocating Compression Ignition Engines
F2316-08 Airframe Emergency Parachutes –
3 - Availability of Referenced Document
Reference Documents are available from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box
C700, West Conshohocken, PA, 19428-2959 USA
http://www.astm.org
Page 432 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Subpart B - Standard Specification for Design and Performance of a
Light Sport Airplane
Applicable Specifications:
ASTM F2245-09 applies including all Annexes and Appendices, except as modified below:
Action Requirement to be read as follows:
Modify 1.2 This specification is applicable to aeroplanes intended for “non-aerobatic” and
for “VFR day” operation only. Non-aerobatic operation includes -
(a) Any manoeuvre incidental to normal flying;
(b) Stalls (except whip stalls); and
(c) Eights, chandelles, and steep turns, in which the angle of bank is not
more than 60°.
(d) Spinning for aeroplanes complying with 4.5.9.2.
Delete 1.3
Modify 3.2.34 VNE – never exceed speed
Modify 4.1.1.2 … must be less than or equal to 0.9VDF and greater than or equal to 1.1VC. In
addition, VNE must be greater than or equal to VH.
Add 4.1.3 When the aircraft is equipped with a variable pitch propeller and / or a
retractable landing gear, the various configurations of those devices have to be
considered, as applicable.
Add 4.2.1.3 The maximum empty weight W E (N) as defined in 4.2.1.1 shall be determined.
W E shall be provided as operational limitation for the aircraft
Add 4.3.2 A propeller that can be controlled in flight but does not have constant speed
controls must be so designed that –
4.3.2.1 4.3.1 is met with the lowest possible pitch selected for the takeoff and climb
case, and
4.3.2.2 4.3.1 is met with the highest possible pitch selected for the glide case.
Add 4.3.3 A controllable pitch propeller with constant speed controls must comply with
the following requirements:
4.3.3.1 With the governor in operation, there must be a means to limit the maximum
engine rotational speed to the maximum allowable take-off speed, and
4.3.3.2 With the governor inoperative, there must be a means to limit the maximum
engine rotational speed to 103% of the maximum allowable take-off speed
with the propeller blades at the lowest possible pitch and the aeroplane
stationary with no wind at full throttle position.
Add 4.6.1 Ground Vibration Test – For aircraft exceeding Vne 200 km/h (108 kt) a
ground vibration test with subsequent analysis of the vibration modes and
frequencies and potential flutter cases must show the aircraft to be free from
flutter before verification in flight.
4.6.2 This ground vibration test and analysis may be omitted when there is clear
reason to assume freedom of flutter due to compliance with all of the
following:
4.6.2.1 Reasonable analysis following the Airframe and Equipment Engineering Report
No. 45 (as corrected) ‘Simplified Flutter Prevention Criteria’ (published by the
Federal Aviation Administration) shows the aircraft to be free from flutter risk
4.6.2.2 The airplane
4.6.2.2.2 does not have T-tail, V-tai or boom-tail or other unconventional tail
configurations
Page 433 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
4.6.2.2.5 is equipped with fixed fin tail surfaces
4.6.2.2.6 does not have significant amount of sweep
4.6.2.2.7 does not have unusual mass concentrations along the wing span (such as
floats or fuel tanks in the outer wing panels)
Add 4.5.2.3 The control force to achieve the positive limit manoeuvring load factor (n1)
shall not be less than 70 N in the clean configuration at the aft centre of
gravity limit. The control force increase is to be measured in flight from an
initial n=1 trimmed flight condition at VC.
4.5.2.4 If flight tests are unable to demonstrate a manoeuvring load factor of n1, then
the minimum control force shall be determined using the ratio of n1 to the
demonstrated load factor. Control forces and gradients shall not be
extrapolated by more than 0.5 ’g’ beyond the demonstrated load factor.
Modify 4.5.4.2, change VS1 against 1.1VS1
Modify 4.5.5.2, change VS1 against 1.2VS1
Modify 4.5.6 contents in parenthesis to be read
(1.1 * VS to maximum allowable speed specified in the POH, both as
appropriate to the configuration)
Modify 4.5.7 Wings level Stall and Stall Warning
4.5.7.1 It shall be possible to preven more than 20° of roll or yaw by normal use of
the controls during the stall and she recovery at all weight and CG
combinations
4.5.7.2 A stall warning can be omitted when, during stalling in level flight
4.5.7.2.1 It is possible to initiate and correct a roll motion using aileron control alone
while maintaining rudder control at neutral position
4.5.7.2.2 The aeroplane does not have a noticeable tendency to drop one wing while
aileron and rudder controls are held neutral
4.5.7.3 On aeroplanes that do not meet requirements under 4.5.7.2.
4.5.7.3.1 in both, straight and turning flight, with flaps and landing gear in any normal
position, a clear and distinctive stall warning must exist;
4.5.7.3.2 The stall warning must not occur at normal operating speeds, but must occur
sufficiently before the stall to allow the pilot to regain level flight;
4.5.7.3.3 The stall warning may be furnished either through the inherent aerodynamic
qualities (e.g. buffeting) of the aeroplane or by a device that clearly indicates
the stall.
Modify 4.6 Vibrations-Flight testing shall not reveal, by pilot observation, heavy
buffeting, excessive airframe or control vibrations, flutter (with proper
attempts to induce it), or control divergence, at any speed from VSO to VDF
(except as associated with a stall).
Modify 4.7 Ground and Water Control and Stability.
Add 4.7.3 A seaplane or amphibian may not have dangerous or uncontrollable
porpoising characteristics at any normal operating speed on the water.
Add 4.8 Spray Characteristics – Spray may not dangerously obscure the vision of the
pilots or damage the propeller or other parts of a seaplane or amphibian at
any time during taxiing, take-off, and landing.
Modify 5.1.3.1 … without detrimental permanent deformation …
Modify 5.8.1.7, implement the following changes in Fig. 6
(i) change in Fig 6 (a) and Fig 6 (c) application of the rearward force from
ground contact point to the wheel axle
(ii) change in Fig 6 (c) the value of the vertical load from 3.2 x Static Load to
2.25 x Static Load.
Add 5.10.2 Each aeroplane with retractable landing gear must be designed to protect
Page 434 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
each occupant in a landing
5.10.2.1 With the wheels retracted;
5.10.2.2 With moderate descent velocity
5.10.2.3 Assuming, in the absence of a more rational analysis (1) a downward
ultimate inertia force of 3g and (2) a coefficient of friction of 0.5 at the
ground
Modify 6.10.1 … ability to reach all controls for smooth, positive and conventional
recognition and operation shall be provided.
Add 6.11 Landing Gear Retracting Mechanism
6.11.1 Each landing gear retracting mechanism and its supporting structure must be
designed for the maximum flight load factors occurring with the gear
retracted.
6.11.2 For retractable landing gears it must be shown that extension and retraction
of the landing gear are possible without difficulty up to VLO.
6.11.3 An aircraft equipped with a non-manually operated landing gear must have
an auxiliary means of extending the gear.
6.11.4 If a retractable landing gear is used, there must be a means to inform the
pilot that the gear is secured in the extended (or retracted) position.
Add 6.12 Floats and Hulls
6.12.1 Main Float Buoyancy – Each main float must have –
6.12.1.1 A buoyancy of 1.8 times the portion of the 80% in excess of the maximum
weight which that float is expected to carry in supporting the maximum
weight of the seaplane or amphibian in fresh water; and
6.12.1.2 Enough watertight compartments to provide reasonable assurance that the
seaplane or amphibian will stay afloat if any two compartments of the main
floats are flooded.
6.12.2 Each main float must contain at least four watertight compartments
approximately equal in volume.
6.12.3 Auxiliary Floats – Auxiliary floats must be arranged so that when completely
submerged in fresh water, they provide a righting moment of at least 1.5
times the upsetting moment caused by the seaplane or amphibian being
tilted.
Modify 7.1 Installation
7.1.1 The powerplant installation shall be easily accessible for inspection and
maintenance.
7.1.2 The powerplant attachment to the airframe is part of the structure and shall
withstand the applicable load factors.
7.1.3 Propeller-Engine-Airframe Interactions—In the absence of a more rigorous
approach, powerplant installations must be shown to have satisfactory
endurance in accordance with the requirements of 7.1.3.1 through 7.1.3.3
without failure, malfunction, excessive wear, or other anomalies.
7.1.3.1 Complete 100 hours of flight operations for any approved propeller, engine,
and engine mount combination. The testing must be completed on a single
set of hardware, inclusive of engine, propeller, and engine mount.
7.1.3.2 A modification to an existing installation that complies with 7.1.3.1 involving
only a propeller or engine mount change shall complete 25 hours of flight
operations. For the purposes of this requirement, propeller pitch changes to
an otherwise approved installation are not considered to be a propeller
change.
7.1.3.3 Flight operations such as performance, controllability, manoeuvrebility, and
structural flight testing may be counted toward the requirements of this
section.
NOTE 7: Compliance with 7.1.3 is considered an acceptable demonstration
that the engine, propeller, airframe interaction does not exhibit vibration or
other operational anomalies.
Page 435 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
7.1.4 The powerplant, including all systems required for the operation of the
engine and including installed accessories, must be installed to ensure safe
operation within the aircraft operating envelope.
7.1.5 Systems required for the operation of the engine must be identified and
verified to provide adequate capacities (such as fuel flow, lubrication,
cooling) within the aircraft operating envelope.
7.1.6 Areas of the engine compartment where flammable fluids or moisture could
accumulate in normal ground and flight attitudes must be drained.
Modify 7.2 to be read:
… approved under 14 CFR Part 33, CS-E, or CS-22 Subpart H standards
Add 7.4.3 Oil lines located in an area subject to high heat
(engine compartment) must be fire resistant or protected with a fire-resistant
covering.
Modify 7.6.1 to correct thickness to be read:
Stainless steel, not less than 0.38 mm (0.016 in.) thick,
Add 7.7 Cooling
7.7.1 Liquid Cooling – When equipped with a liquid cooling system:
7.7.1.1 Components of the liquid cooling system must be selected and installed as to
withstand all operating conditions that must be expected.
7.7.1.2 Coolant tanks shall be designed to withstand a positive pressure of 24.5 kPa
(3.55 psi) (2.5-m (8.2-ft) water column) plus the maximum working
pressure of the system.
Add 7.8 Exhaust– Each exhaust system must ensure safe disposal of exhaust gases
without fire hazard or carbon monoxide contamination in the personnel
compartment.
Add 7.9 Propeller:
7.9.1 Installed propellers shall conform to Subpart J or shall be type certificated or
otherwise approved under 14 CFR Part 35, CS-P, or CS-22 Subpart J
standards.
7.9.2 Sufficient clearance must be provided between propeller and ground or
water, as well as between propeller (including all other rotating parts of the
propeller and spinner) and structural components. Effects of aircraft weight,
center of gravity, propeller pitch positions, flight accelerations, vibrations and
aging of shock mounts must be considered.
Add 8.5 Instruments and other equipment may not in themselves, or by their effect
upon the aircraft, constitute a hazard to safe operation. Therefore:
8.5.1 Each item of required ATC equipment must be approved.
8.5.2 Each item of installed equipment must:
8.5.2.1 be installed according to limitations specified for that equipment
8.5.2.2 be installed in a way that it is unlikely to adversely affect the proper
functioning of any other system or equipment of the aircraft
8.5.2.3 be installed in a way to function properly
8.5.2.4 be labeled or designed to be clearly identifiable
8.5.2.5 be described and labeled appropriate regarding limitations and operation.
Add 9.1.3 Required Placards
Operational Conditions—A placard stating ‘This aeroplane is classified as a
Light Sport Aeroplane approved for day VFR day operation only, in non-icing
conditions. All aerobatic manoeuvres are prohibited. See Flight Manual for
other limitations’.
9.1.3.1. No intentional Spins”, if applicable.
Modify 10.1 Item to be read:
Each airplane shall include a Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH) that conforms
to Subpart G1.
Page 436 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Delete 10.2 – 10.11 incl. sub-chapters
Modify Annex A1
A1.2.2 The aircraft must be capable of achieving a rate of climb while towing of at
least 1,5 m/s, while not exceeding the maximum placarded towing speed of
the towing aircraft, or the maximum safe towing speed of the aircraft being
towed.
Modify Annex A1
A1.6.1.6 The rated ultimate strength of the weak links to be used in the towing cable
shall be established and shown to be suitable in operation. For the
determination of loads to be applied for the purpose of this section, the
strength of the weak link shall not be less than 300 daN.
Modify Annex A2
A2.1 Applicability
A2.1.1 CS-LSA is not yet acceptable as certification basis for LSA to be flown at
night. Annex A2 A2.7.2 to A2.9.8 is applicable for the installation of lights.
Delete Annex A 2
Chapters A2.2 – A2.7.1.5 and
Chapters A.2.8 - A.2.11.2
Page 437 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Subpart G1 - Operating Limitations and Information
(a) General - Each airplane shall include a Flight Manual or Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH)
that conforms to F2746-09 (6) as modified below or GAMA Specification No. 1
(b) Approved Manual Material
(1) Each part of the flight containing information required by the following chapters or
paragraphs of a Pilot’s operating Handbook according F2746-09 (6)
- Chapter No. 2 Limitations;
- Chapter No. 3 Emergency Procedures;
- Chapter No. 5 Performance;
- 6.10.1 Weight and Balance Chart;
- 6.10.2 Operating Weights and loading;
- 6.10.3 Center of Gravity (CG) range and determination;
- 6.12.5.1 Approved fuel grade and specifications;
- 6.12.5.2 Approved oil grades and specifications;
must be approved, identified and clearly distinguished from each other part of the
Flight Manual
(2) Non approved information must be presented in a manner acceptable to the Agency.
(c) Standard Specification for Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH):
ASTM F2746-09 applies including all Annexes and Appendices, except as modified
Delete 1.3
Delete 1.4
Delete 6.13.3
Delete 7
Modify In section 6.6.4, remove everything following (V A) to read:
Maneuvering speed (V A) at gross weight and minimum weight
Page 438 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Subpart G2 - Maintenance Limitation and Information
General
(a) A maintenance manual containing the information that the applicant considers essential
for proper maintenance must be provided
(b) The part of the manual containing service life limitations, (replacement or overhaul) of
parts, components and accessories subject to such limitations must be approved,
identified and clearly distinguished from each other part of the Flight Manual
(c) ASTM F2483-05 applies including all Annexes and Appendices, except as modified
Delete 1.2
Delete 3.1.2
Delete 3.1.6
Delete 3.1.7
Delete 3.1.14
Delete 3.1.15
Delete 3.1.16
Delete 3.1.2
Delete 4
Modify 5.3 When listing the level of certification needed to perform a task, the manufacturer shall
use one of the following descriptors.
Pilot/Owner—Items that can be expected to be completed by a responsible owner who
holds a pilot certificate but who has not received any specific authorized training.
NOTE–refer to Part M for regulations regarding pilot/owner maintenance.
Approved Maintenance Person—Items that can be expected to be completed by a
maintenance person approved following applicable regulations of Part M and Part 66 for
ELA 1 aircraft maintenance.
Approved Inspection Person— Items that must be inspected by a maintenance person
approved following applicable regulations of Part M and Part 66 for ELA 1 aircraft
maintenance.
Task Specific Training—Items that can be expected to be completed by one of the
options above, but requires task specific training by the aircraft manufacturer or by an
organization approved by the aircraft manufacturer to provide this training.
When specifying the “task specific” level of certification, the manufacturer must also
specify the specific training required.
Modify 6.1 Authorization to Perform—Part M and Part 66 must be consulted for minimum
authorization to perform line maintenance, repairs and alterations of LSA aircraft.
Modify 7.1 Authorization to Perform— Part M and Part 66 must be consulted for minimum
authorization to perform heavy maintenance, repairs and alterations of LSA aircraft.
Modify 10.1 A manufacturer of a product may require type-specific training in order to accomplish a
task in either the maintenance manual or in an authorization for a major repair,
maintenance, or alteration. The FAA does not give approval to these task-specific
training programs for SLSA. A manufacturer may specify any task-specific training it
determines is appropriate to accomplish a task.
Delete Note 1
Delete Note 4
Page 439 of 446

Delete Note 5
Delete Note 6
Delete Note 7
Delete Note 8
Delete Note 9
Delete Note 10
Delete 12
Delete Note 1
Delete Contents regarding E-LSA needs to be removed
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Modify Throughout complete section 11 the terms “Safety Directives” and “Service Directives” are
changed against “Notices of Corrective Action”. This is in line with the referenced standard
F2295.
Page 440 of 446

Subpart H - Engine
Applicable Specifications:
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Installed engines shall conform to ASTM F2339, ASTM F2538, 14 CFR Part 33, CS-E or CS-22
Subpart H standards.
When selected, ASTM F2339 applies, including all Annexes and Appendices, except as
modified:
delete 1.2
delete 2
delete 8
Page 441 of 446

Subpart J - Propeller
Applicable Specifications:
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Installed propellers shall conform to ASTM F2506, 7 14 CFR Part 35, CS-P, or CS-22 Subpart J
standards.
When selected, ASTM F2506 applies, including all Annexes and Appendices, except as
modified:
delete 1.4
delete 2 incl. sub chapters
delete 10
Modify The reference within section 6.5 to section 5 is incorrect; must reference to
Section 6.1 – 6.4 and to the addition as by (e) below.
Add 5.5 Pitch Control
5.5.1 Failure of the propeller pitch control may not cause hazardous overspeeding
under intended operation conditions.
5.5.2 If the propeller can be feathered the control system must be designed to
minimize (1) consequential hazards, such as a propeller runaway resulting from
malfunction or failure of the control system (2) the possibility of an unintentional
operation.
Add 6.5 Function Test
6.5.1 Each variable pitch propeller must be subjected to all applicable functional tests
of this paragraph. The same propeller used in the endurance test must be used
in the functional test and must be driven by an engine on a test stand or on a
powered sailplane
6.5.2 Manually controllable propellers–500 complete cycles of control throughout the
pitch and rotational speed ranges, excluding the feathering range.
6.5.3 Automatically controllable propellers–1500 complete cycles of control throughout
the pitch and rotational speed ranges, excluding the feathering range.
Page 442 of 446

Subpart K Airframe Emergency Parachute
Applicable Specifications:
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Installed Airframe Emergency Parachutes and installations of such systems shall conform to
ASTM F2316-08. ASTM F2316-08 applies, including all Annexes and Appendices, except as
modified:
delete 1.3
delete 2 incl. sub chapters
delete X1.1.1 including Note X1.1
delete X1.2.1
delete X1.3.1
Modify Fig X1.1 shows the placard explained under 11.3.3.3
Modify Fig X1.2 shows the placard explained under 11.3.3.3
Modify Fig X1.3 shows the placard explained under 11.3.3.3
Modify The reference within section 6.5 to section 5 is incorrect; must reference to Section 6.1 –
6.4 and to the addition as by (e) below.
Page 443 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
EASA Certification Specifications
for
Light Sport Aeroplanes
CS-LSA
Book 2
Acceptable Means of
Compliance
Page 444 of 446

AMC Subpart B 6.2
Parts of Structure Critical to Safety
CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
(a) The use of the following stress levels may be taken as sufficient evidence, in conjunction
with good design practices to eliminate stress concentrations, that structural items have
adequate safe lives:
Material used Allowable normal stress level of maximum limit
load
Glass rovings in epoxy resin
Carbon fibre rovings in epoxy resin
Wood
Aluminium Alloy
Steel Alloy
25 daN/mm 2
40 daN/mm 2
According to ANC-18*
Half of rupture tensile strength
Half of rupture tensile strength
(b) Higher stress levels need further fatigue investigation using one or a combination of the
following methods:
(1) By a fatigue test, based on a realistic operating spectrum.
(2) By a fatigue calculation using strength values which have been proved to be
sufficient by fatigue tests of specimens or components.
* ANC-18 is the ANC Bulletin “Design of wood aircraft structures”; issued June 1944 by the
Army-Navy-Civil Committee on Aircraft Design Criteria (USA).
Material Strength Properties and Design Values (Interpretative Material)
Material specifications should be those contained in documents accepted either specifically by
the Agency or by having been prepared by an organisation or person which the Agency accepts
has the necessary capabilities. In defining design properties these material specification values
should be modified and/or extended as necessary by the constructor to take account of
manufacturing practices (for example method of construction, forming, machining and
subsequent heat treatment).
Page 445 of 446

CRD to NPA 2008-07 24 Nov 2010
Appendix B - Attachments
Requirements for Qualified Entities.pdf
Attachment #1 to comment #540
Stellungnahme BAZL zu EASA NPA 07 2008.pdf
Attachment #2 to comment #342
PART 21.pdf
Attachment #3 to comment #143
FAA Light Sport Aircraft Structural Safety Record July FY08.pdf
Attachment #4 to comment #670
Page 446 of 446